Delta Zeta Reportedly Sues DePauw

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Anyone else think this may help DZ's recruitment next Fall? (or Spring) Girls who are so hooked on image and being a part of the beautiful sorority could be thinking to themselves "Well they kick out the ugly people, so if I can get in that means I'm pretty and hot!". Just thinking on a college freshman/high school perspective. Some girls just don't know about the sisterhood and committment that comes with being in a sorority. Some just want the partying and the boys.

No, I doubt it, because the way this is coming off to the general public is that you don't have to be pretty to GET in, you have to be pretty to STAY in, and your rolling the dice that whoever it is that's judging who's pretty and who's not thinks that you are.

[Taualumna]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

"They'd like to have their good name restored and they'd like to have the chapter continue to operate," says Kevin O'Neill, an attorney with Patton Boggs in Washington, D.C., who has been consulting with Delta Zeta officials.

Kevin O'Neill is good.

This should be very interesting.

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

Originally Posted by kddani

Has anyone seen a copy of the complaint? Anybody know the docket number?

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

Originally Posted by TSteven

Frankly, I doubt this lawsuit was filed irrationally. And I doubt that any attorney worth a grain of salt is going to take a case of this type unless they feel they can win it or settle it out of court. Which leads me to believe there may be some merit behind this case.

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

Originally Posted by DGMarie

When they are put into evidence, could they then become public record?

Yes.

Originally Posted by TSteven

I would guess (and hope) that Delta Zeta would claim ritual (membership selection) to be privileged information. And anything related to ritual as well.

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.

Originally Posted by Taualumna

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.

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.

[ForeverRoses]

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?

[IvySpice]

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.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by IvySpice

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?