Mel Tucker Responds To Michigan State Looking To Fire Him For Cause, Investigation 'Falls Short Of The Mark'

Mel Tucker and his attorneys have responded to Michigan State in their attempt to fire him for cause, stemming from an investigation into sexual harassment.

In the full 25-page letter to Michigan State, Tucker's lawyers have now laid out the case as to why he shouldn't be fired for cause. The letter comes as the seven-day period for response was coming to an end.

According to the attorneys representing Tucker, they maintain Mel Tucker did not engage in any unprofessional or unethical behavior.

" did not engage in unprofessional or unethical behavior or 'moral turpitude' by any stretch of the imagination," the letter states. "In fact, as discussed below, under Michigan law, assault and battery does not even constitute 'moral turpitude,' and the flimsy foundation of the university's finding -- a private relationship involving mutual flirting and one instance of consensual phone sex -- falls far short of the mark."

Right now, Michigan State is in the process of firing Tucker for cause, which would also exclude them from paying the $79 million left on his guaranteed contract. It is clear by the letter Mel Tucker's attorney's have responded with, they do not think he should be fired for cause, based on the evidence.

Mel Tucker Attorneys Say Investigation Is 'Terribly Flawed'

Also, the response aggressively lays out the argument that Michigan State has not put together a valid case against their client. They claim that Michigan State's inevesitgation into Mel Tucker is "terribly flawed, unfair, biased, and devoid of due process."

In addition, the attorneys state that Tucker is just the fall guy for the school's 'negligence and misfeasance' in which they've handled this case.

"Tucker is just the fall guy for the university's negligence and misfeasance, the long history of which includes and predates the Nassar matter, but which unfortunately has continued and tainted the university's handling of this matter," the letter states.

The attorney's for Tucker released the letter to the school on the sixth day, of the seven day period they had to file a response, based on the terms for firing with cause.

"If the university investigated your private life or that of any other employee, it would certainly find something 'embarrassing' to presumably justify your or their termination."

In terms of firing Tucker for cause, his lawyers maintain they are in breach of his contract, with the university not having justifiable grounds to terminate Mel Tucker.

"The above reasons are more than sufficient to refute the grounds for early termination set forth in the notice. We sincerely hope the university will take them seriously, if not because it cares about Tucker's rights, then because it cares about the limitless liability it will face over the private lives of its thousands of employees and faculty."