Kevin O'Neill, the attorney. Not you, Stevester. LOL.

I'd also like to bring up the whole "the school told us to do a membership review" thing. As we have seen on GC many times, Boys And Girls Are Different. The membership review that's been referenced was conducted by a fraternity. I seriously, seriously doubt that the same criteria was used by them, or would be used by any fraternity, that would be used by DZ or any sorority. Men and women look for different things when choosing members. If anything, the pres of DePauw was naive in not realizing that.

Goodness! When I left to have dinner with my boyfriend yetserday afternoon, this thread was up to 2 pages. When I came home around 11:30, it had six or so!

I don't think membership selection will neccessarily be made public during the case. As people have said in the other thread, this is about kicking women who have already initiated out of the sorority (no matter how you word it, forcing someone into alum status while they are still undergraduates and while the GLO is still active, is "kicking out".) It has nothing to do with who gets in based on whatever. They aren't PNMs, they are initiated sisters.

As for ritual and its secrecy, I believe that there was a thread from long ago that talked about who outside might know about our ritual. I recall a post from OTW mentioning something that we were told at Convention. She said that people outside of our groups have to make ritual-related material, so yes, people have seen it. They just have no clue what things mean.

And Patton Boggs is a good firm. But I notice that he doesn't seem to be representing them in this lawsuit.

I've looked but haven't found it yet -- I am also unwilling to use the office PACER account to get it.

Ah, I remember when I was that naive. Sorry, Steven, but there are plenty of lawyers who regularly disprove that idea.

Yes.

As Dani said, there's little chance of that. Unless they can convince a judge that these are "trade secrets" -- which will be very difficult, I think, especially given that they're the ones who brought this lawsuit -- there's nothing privileged about this information. Private, yes; privileged, no.

Won't matter. DePauw is entitled to pursue and will be allowed to pursue any discovery regarding anything that is relevant to the matters involved in the lawsuit (which will include membership selection and retention criteria) or anything that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The scope of discovery is very broad.

With the caveat that I haven't read the complaint, it seems to me that the Delta Zeta leadership is getting some very, very bad advice. I don't see much good coming out of this for them.

DZ is suing DePauw, the former Delta DZs are considering suing DZ.

It sounds like DZ is going to be spending allot of money on court costs.

So who is going to pay for all of this? I assume DZ doesn't have some sort of legal fund, and I would assume that DePauw has deeper pockets that DZ and can drag this out for a fairly long time.

Plus from one of the previous articles, one of the "kicked-out" DZs has a father that is a partner at a prominent law firm here in Indy, so I'm sure that suit will have some pro-bono workers.

So is DZ going to send out letters to all alums asking for donations for legal fees?

Not legal advice, of course.
 

Madness!

Other lawyers have already correctly explained why privilege and the right to choose members freely are going to do zip to protect DZ in this case.

Someone several pages back suggested that perhaps the problem was that DePauw did not follow its own published grievance procedures in kicking out DZ.

It doesn't have to. In the absence of a two-sided contract referencing the grievance procedure -- like, say, a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and a union -- handbooks outlining internal procedures are unenforceable. They're instructions from the institution to its staff, NOT binding contracts with everyone who may interact with the institution.

Barring very unusual circumstances that aren't present here, any promises DePauw may have made about DZ coming back are likewise unenforceable. Both parties are sophisticated corporate entities, not consumers. If DZ wanted to make sure the university stuck to its word, they should have drawn up a contract. Otherwise, DePauw is perfectly entitled to change its mind and kick them out.

If this case moves forward, do you - or any other legal folk - anticipate any legal repercussions that might affect other fraternal organizations? More to the point, could this case set some sort of negative precedent?

Having recognized Delta Zeta, (a voluntary action on the part of DePauw) the school is bound by its own rules to treat it exactly as it said it would - through the University's self-written policies. That's why the policies are there in the first place - to ensure that all students and organization are treated equitably. Would any GLO want to go on at a college or university where they were subject to the whims of administrators? If so, those institutions which are anti-Greek (Cornell springs to mind) could just kick off the whole system without regard to the rights of the students and organizations. The students and organizations have obligations they must meet, as does the host institution. Again, I have yet to be presented with anything that shows that Delta Zeta received due process.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in DePauw kicking off DZ without due process because they "kicked out" (I know, I know) members without due process?
The policy - instituted AFTER the DZ debacle - that GLOs can't throw anyone out of the house mid-year is a good one. But it was not in place at the time Delta Zeta did so, and so Depauw can hardly say DZ did not meet their obligations. They can be upset, they can change the policy, but to throw out the chapter without going through the procedure THEY outline for transgressions by student organizations is to basically declare that the University is a dictatorship, not an institution built on a rule of law.
And whether or not a member is an active or an alumnae is indeed a membership issue. I married during college, and so became an alumna. Does the university have the right to say, no, she can remain active because we say so? I'd argue no - that is a membership issue for the GLO to decide.

Upon reading my previous post, I fear that I come off as too "pro-DZ" headquarters. That is not my intention. But I think it is dangerous to allow host institutions to throw out their own rule books when deciding how to deal with GLOs whose actions they do not approve of.
My earnest hope and prayer is that somehow this can be resolved before it goes to court. I don't see anyone really benefitting from a court battle. 'Cept the lawyers, of course.

From a non-legal standpoint, I think Delta Zeta appears to be on its face hypocritical.

On the one hand, they had no problem giving their own members the boot without any sort of process which made sense to anyone.

On the other hand, they're complaining when Depauw, a private school seems to have done exactly the same thing to Delta Zeta.

Legally, I know I'd be misstating the theory, but it seems to me that some species of equitable estoppel might operate as a strong defense for the University.

That aside, also legally, I don't believe that (absent a contractual duty) Depauw has any obligation to follow its own policies with regard to any matter. Those policies may provide some sort of intra-organization decision-making framework, but policies of private organizations generally do not operate as contractual obligations to the outside world.

Thank you for putting into words what I failed to communicate properly!

Yes it is really sad.

They can post a whole page about how they are trying to sue the pants off of DePauw, but they can only write a tiny 1-inch blurb about how they "are sorry for any hurt feelings" the reorg may have caused their own sisters.

As IvySpice said just a few posts ago, Delta Zeta really can't have a cause of action based on DePauw's failing to follow its internal policies.
That's very hard to say without actually reading the complaint that has been filed and DePauw's motion to dismiss or answer, that will be filed. At this point, we are all only speculating as to what the allegations and actual claims are, and what DePauw's defenses (and counter-claims, if any) will be, since they are what lay out the issues that will be decided in this case.

Okay, I'm curious. Can anyone with a legal background explain exactly what equitable estoppel is? I'm assuming it's something along the lines of it's unfair to hold people to standards you aren't willing to abide by yourself, but I know next to nothing about law.

Does anybody know what exactly happens when a new Greek org comes on campus? I know how expansion works, but are there any documents signed by the group, the school, and/or the local PHC? I just wonder if there is anything there that could become part of the case.

Thank you counselor. A few follow up questions if I may.

In your opinion, is this the type of case that might be tried before a jury? Or do you feel it will more likely be tried before a judge. Also, based on the merits as presented (real and perceived), what is your opinion on the case being outright dismissed?

estoppel

equitable estoppel

A type of estoppel that bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position. For example, if a landlord agrees to allow a tenant to pay the rent ten days late for six months, it would be unfair to allow the landlord to bring a court action in the fourth month to evict the tenant for being a week late with the rent. The landlord would be estopped from asserting his right to evict the tenant for late payment of rent. Also known as estoppel in pais.

I would guess it depends on the school and what services they - the school - might provide. Housing as an example. I'm sure there are other areas covered like risk management etc.