Student Suing University of Michigan and Professor, Alleging Sexual Assault

Case 2:18-cv-13321-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 10/24/18 PageID.
1 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDREW LIPIAN, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No: 18-cv

Hon.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,
and DAVID DANIELS, employee
of the University of Michigan, sued
in his personal and official capacity,
jointly and severally,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________
DEBORAH GORDON LAW
Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)
Elizabeth A. Marzotto Taylor (P82061)
Andrea M. Mannino (P78856)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
(248) 258-2500/FAX (248) 258-7881
dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com
emarzottotaylor@deborahgordonlaw.com
___________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff Andrew Lipian, by his attorneys Deborah Gordon Law complains
against Defendants as follows:
Jurisdiction and Parties
1. This is an action for hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual
Case 2:18-cv-13321-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 10/24/18 PageID.2 Page 2 of 14
harassment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as
amended, 20 USC '1681, et seq., 34 C.F.R. '106.31 et seq. and the Elliott-Larsen
Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.21010 et seq.
2. Plaintiff Andrew Lipian (hereafter “Plaintiff”) was at all times
material a student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, located within the
Eastern District of Michigan.
3. Defendant University of Michigan (hereafter “University”) is a state
university that maintains its principal place of business and conducts business in
the Eastern District of Michigan.
4. Defendant David Daniels (hereinafter “Daniels”), age 52, was at all
times material hereto a Professor at the University of Michigan.
5. The events underlying this Complaint occurred in the Eastern District
of Michigan.
6. This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC
'1331 and 28 USC '1343.
Background Facts
7. In late 2015 Plaintiff applied to the University’s “School of Music,
Theatre & Dance” (hereafter “SMTD”) to obtain a master’s degree from its Voice
Department.
2
8. Plaintiff began classes at the SMTD in Fall, 2016.
9. Defendant Daniels joined the SMTD faculty in the Fall, 2015 as a
Professor. Daniels had no teaching or academic experience; he had been a
professional opera singer and recording artist for two decades. He was brought
onboard to elevate the prestige of the SMTD Voice Department and to increase
enrollment at the University.
10. The University faculty website page promotes the idea that Daniels is
a major star, stating, in part, that he “has appeared with the world’s major opera
companies and on its main concert and recital stages. He made history as the first
countertenor to give a solo recital in the main auditorium of Carnegie Hall. The
Chicago Tribune has called Daniels ‘today’s gold standard among countertenors.’
Gramophone magazine acknowledged his contribution to recorded excellence as
well as his expansion of the repertoire for his voice type by naming him one of the
‘Top Ten Trailblazers’ in classical music today. . . . Highly sought after for the
works of Handel, Monteverdi, Gluck, Mozart, and Britten, Daniels has been
featured on the great operatic stages of the world to overwhelming critical acclaim.
Highlights of recent seasons include multiple appearances at the Metropolitan
Opera as the title role of Giulio Cesare in David McVicar’s inventive production,
Prospero in the Baroque pastiche The Enchanted Island, and in the title role of
3
Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice in a new production marking Mark Morris’s debut at the
Met as a stage director and conducted by music director James Levine.
Appearances at the Lyric Opera of Chicago include the title role in Handel’s
Rinaldo, Oberon in Britten’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Lichas in Peter
Sellars’s new production of Handel’s Hercules. Additional appearances include
Arsamenes in Handel’s Xerxes and Bertarido in Handel’s Rodelinda with the San
Francisco Opera. At Santa Fe Opera his role debut as Roberto in Vivaldi’s
Griselda, the work’s first major U.S. production by Peter Sellars, drew rave
reviews. http://smtd.umich.edu/about/faculty-profiles/david-daniels/
11. In particular, Plaintiff sought a career as a countertenor (also referred
to as contra tenor), a unique type of classical male singing voice whose vocal range
is equivalent to that of the female contralto or mezzo-soprano voice types.
12. Defendant Daniels had established an extremely successful career as a
countertenor prior to joining the faculty of the University, as set forth in part
above, and had multiple high level connections in the performing and recording
industries and in the international opera community. Daniels made a point of
ensuring that Plaintiff knew this.
13. Daniels promoted the idea that he was responsible for placing students
in roles and on stage and that he would do the same for Plaintiff.
4
14. Beginning in Fall, 2016, Plaintiff was one of Daniels’s students at the
University. In addition to attending his class, Daniels was Plaintiff’s Voice
Professor, attending private sessions with him once a week.
15. Based upon Daniels’s continual promises of career assistance and his
friendly overtures and encouragement, Plaintiff viewed Daniels as a professional
mentor as well as his Professor. Daniels organized auditions for Plaintiff with top
level conductors and agents visiting the University and promised to connect him
with his own manager and additional professional opportunities.
16. Daniels is openly gay.
17. Plaintiff is heterosexual and married.
18. Daniels attempted to engage and encourage Plaintiff in Daniels’ own
sexual preferences and proclivities.
19. Daniels told Plaintiff on many occasions that he was “really hot.”
20. In spite of being a University Professor, Daniels thought nothing of
continually discussing sexual topics and activities with Plaintiff and other students
with the expectation that his conduct would be accepted.
21. It was well known by faculty and administration at the SMTD that
Daniels was extremely open about and forward with his sexual thoughts and
feelings, including sharing sexual images and banter with them. But no
5
administrator took any action to ensure that Daniels was not sexually harassing
students.
22. Daniels apparently had little or no understanding of or training in the
University’s Standard Practice Guide (SPG) on sexual harassment of students by
faculty.
23. The SPG states that:
Unwanted sexual statements – sexual or “dirty” jokes,

comments on physical attributes, spreading rumors about or
rating others as to sexual activity or performance, talking about
one’s sexual activity in front of others, and displaying or
distributing sexually explicit drawings, pictures and/or written
material. Unwanted sexual statements can be made in person, in
writing, electronically (email, messaging, blogs, web pages,
etc.), and otherwise.
Unwanted personal attention – letters, telephone calls, visits,

pressure for sexual favors, pressure for unnecessary personal
interaction, pressure for dates where a sexual/romantic intent
appears evident but remains unwanted, and stalking.
Unwanted physical or sexual advances – touching, hugging,

kissing, fondling, touching oneself sexually for others to view,
sexual assault, intercourse, or other sexual activity.
24. The SPG further states:
Sexual harassment most often occurs when a person has actual

or apparent power or authority over another; however, it may
also occur between individuals of equal status or rank within
the University.
25. The University failed to ensure that this Policy was followed by
6
Daniels.
26. On March 24, 2017, Daniels invited Plaintiff to his apartment to
watch “Ru Paul’s Drag Race” because he was “lonely” and wanted to discuss
Plaintiff’s “career.”
27. Plaintiff was served several drinks of bourbon. When he said he was
tired and needed sleep for a performance the next day, Daniels handed him what he
said was a Tylenol PM but was actually the sleep medication Ambien. Daniels then
removed Plaintiff’s clothes, forced himself upon Plaintiff and groped and touched
his genitals and face.
28. Shortly thereafter, Daniels told Plaintiff that he would likely be
receiving a full fellowship for the two years of his master’s program.
29. Daniels was aware that Plaintiff sought to succeed professionally as a
countertenor and offered his assistance in “opening doors” for him and providing
him with counsel, advice and assistance. Daniels convinced Plaintiff that he was
the key to Plaintiff having a professional career.
30. In September 2017 the SMTD “Recruitment Coordinator” told
Daniels he should watch out for one of his students [not Plaintiff] who was
complaining openly that Daniels was “sexual” during his voice lessons.
31. Daniels sent Plaintiff multiple text messages, including
7
- requests for pictures of Plaintiff’s genitals
- reiterating that he would “open doors” for Plaintiff professionally
- requests for a video of Plaintiff masturbating
- graphic pictures of a woman’s vagina
- graphic pictures and videos of men’s genitals and masturbation
- a video of Daniels masturbating
- graphic sexual references and images
- a reference to “our bourbon and ambien night.”
32. In spite of the multiple requests, Plaintiff never shared any sexual
photos or videos of himself or sexual images of any kind with Daniels. He
attempted to keep Daniels at bay, and to not offend or anger him while continuing
his education.
33. In May, 2018 Daniels told Plaintiff that someone had sent an
anonymous letter to the SMTD stating that Daniels had “come on” sexually to two
SMTD students He later advised Plaintiff that a University administrator told him
the letter was inconsequential and probably false.
34. In August, 2018, Daniels was publicly accused by a Rice University
graduate student and opera singer of drugging and sexually assaulting him after a
Houston Grand Opera performance in 2010.
8
35. Shortly after the allegation described above, Daniels was publicly
accused by a 19-year-old male, believed to be a University student, of asking for a
sex act in exchange for money via the gay dating app known as Grindr. Upon
information and belief, The University of Michigan Police Department turned the
matter over to the Pittsfield Township Police Department.
36. Both of the accusations were covered in the national media.
37. In August, 2018 a faculty member became aware of the sexual assault
Plaintiff had been subjected to in 2017 and as a mandatory reporter, reported it to
the University Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), part of the University’s Title IX
office, which is responsible for an internal investigation of sexually harassing
behavior by University faculty.
38. Plaintiff has not been contacted by the OIE and is unaware of any
investigation by it.
39. As of August, 2018, the University listed Daniels’ status on his faculty
web page as “(on leave Fall 2018)”. Daniels continues to draw University pay
and benefits.
40. The University has never instituted a Title IX investigation into
Daniels’ behavior, in spite of all the available information and complaints that
were brought to its attention.
9
COUNT I
Sexual Harassment in
Violation of Title IX
(as against Defendant University)
41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-40 set forth above with the
same force and effect as though set forth in full herein.
42. Defendant University of Michigan is a recipient of federal funds and
is subject to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, 20 USC
'1681, et seq., 34 C.F.R. '106.31.
43. As such, Defendant is prohibited from engaging in sex discrimination,
including sexual harassment of a student by a Professor under Title IX. 20 USC
'1691(a).
44. Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile environment sex harassment based
on his gender by his Professor, David Daniels, in violation of Title IX.
45. The sexual harassment included subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile
environment as described above.
46. The actions described above directed at Plaintiff by Daniels were at
all times unwelcome.
47. The University was deliberately indifferent to the actions of Daniels.
Defendant University knew, or should have known, of Daniels predilection to seek
sex from students, and/or create a hostile environment based on sex.

10
48. Moreover, Defendant knew that Daniels was a renowned singer and
that he had particular power to intimidate, entice, coerce and/or manipulate
students. In fact, the University ignored warnings about his behavior precisely
because he was valuable to it as “today’s gold standard among countertenors,” as
described on its website.
49. The University failed to train Daniels and to ensure that he follow its
Policy prohibiting sexual harassment.
50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions,
Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, injury, and damages, including but not
limited to, time and resources, career opportunities and earning capacity, mental
and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish, humiliation and
embarrassment; and loss of personal and professional reputation.
COUNT II
Sex discrimination in violation of
The Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act
(as against the University and Daniels)
51. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 50 set forth above
with the same force and effect as though set forth in full herein.
52. Defendant University is an “educational institution” covered by MCL
37.2401 and Daniels was an “agent” of that educational institution.
53. Pursuant to MCL 37.2102, the University and its agents were
11
prohibited from engaging in sex discrimination, which includes sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature where
submission to the conduct or communication is made a term or condition either
explicitly or implicitly to obtain education or the conduct or communication has
the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's education, or
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment.
54. As described aforesaid, Plaintiff was sexually harassed in violation of
the law.
55. The action and inactions of Defendants resulted in discriminating
against Plaintiff in the full utilization of or benefit from an educational institution
or the services, activities, or programs provided by the educational institution.
56. Defendants’ actions as described above were in deliberate disregard of
and with reckless indifference to the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.
57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions,
Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, injury, and damages, including but not
mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish, humiliation and
embarrassment; and loss of personal and professional reputation and opportunities.
12
Relief Requested
Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. Legal Relief:
1. Compensatory damages in whatever amount he is found to be

entitled;
2. Exemplary damages in whatever amount she is found to be en-

titled;
3. An award of interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and expert

witness fees.
B. Equitable Relief:
1. An injunction out of this Court prohibiting any further acts of

wrongdoing against Plaintiff;
2. An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees; and,
3. Whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at the time of

final judgment.
Dated: October 24, 2018 DEBORAH GORDON LAW

/s/Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)
(248) 258-2500
13
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Andrew Lipian, by and through his attorneys Deborah Gordon Law,
demands a trial by jury of all the issues in this cause that are so triable.
Dated: October 24, 2018 DEBORAH GORDON LAW

/s/Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)
(248) 258-2500
14

Student Suing University of Michigan and Professor, Alleging Sexual Assault

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Suing University of Michigan and Professor, Alleging Sexual Assault

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Suing University of Michigan and Professor, Alleging Sexual Assault

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:18-cv-13321-AJT-APP ECF No. 1 filed 10/24/18 PageID.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ANDREW LIPIAN, an individual,

vs. Case No: 18-cv

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Andrew Lipian, by his attorneys Deborah Gordon Law complains

against Defendants as follows:

Jurisdiction and Parties

harassment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as

Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.21010 et seq.

2. Plaintiff Andrew Lipian (hereafter “Plaintiff”) was at all times

Eastern District of Michigan.

3. Defendant University of Michigan (hereafter “University”) is a state

the Eastern District of Michigan.

4. Defendant David Daniels (hereinafter “Daniels”), age 52, was at all

times material hereto a Professor at the University of Michigan.

5. The events underlying this Complaint occurred in the Eastern District

6. This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC

'1331 and 28 USC '1343.

7. In late 2015 Plaintiff applied to the University’s “School of Music,

8. Plaintiff began classes at the SMTD in Fall, 2016.

9. Defendant Daniels joined the SMTD faculty in the Fall, 2015 as a

Professor. Daniels had no teaching or academic experience; he had been a

enrollment at the University.

Gramophone magazine acknowledged his contribution to recorded excellence as

Highlights of recent seasons include multiple appearances at the Metropolitan

Met as a stage director and conducted by music director James Levine.

Rinaldo, Oberon in Britten’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Lichas in Peter

Sellars’s new production of Handel’s Hercules. Additional appearances include

Francisco Opera. At Santa Fe Opera his role debut as Roberto in Vivaldi’s

11. In particular, Plaintiff sought a career as a countertenor (also referred

is equivalent to that of the female contralto or mezzo-soprano voice types.

12. Defendant Daniels had established an extremely successful career as a

industries and in the international opera community. Daniels made a point of

ensuring that Plaintiff knew this.

University. In addition to attending his class, Daniels was Plaintiff’s Voice

Professor, attending private sessions with him once a week.

friendly overtures and encouragement, Plaintiff viewed Daniels as a professional

with his own manager and additional professional opportunities.

16. Daniels is openly gay.

17. Plaintiff is heterosexual and married.

18. Daniels attempted to engage and encourage Plaintiff in Daniels’ own

sexual preferences and proclivities.

20. In spite of being a University Professor, Daniels thought nothing of

with the expectation that his conduct would be accepted.

22. Daniels apparently had little or no understanding of or training in the

University’s Standard Practice Guide (SPG) on sexual harassment of students by

23. The SPG states that:

Unwanted sexual statements – sexual or “dirty” jokes,

Unwanted personal attention – letters, telephone calls, visits,

Unwanted physical or sexual advances – touching, hugging,

24. The SPG further states:

Sexual harassment most often occurs when a person has actual

26. On March 24, 2017, Daniels invited Plaintiff to his apartment to

his genitals and face.

28. Shortly thereafter, Daniels told Plaintiff that he would likely be

29. Daniels was aware that Plaintiff sought to succeed professionally as a

the key to Plaintiff having a professional career.

30. In September 2017 the SMTD “Recruitment Coordinator” told