John Hefti / USA TODAY Sports

Documents and exhibits from University of Nevada call into question some elements of Yann Hufnagel sexual harassment complaint

Text messages and documents released by the University of Nevada show that there are discrepancies in the sexual harassment allegations leveled against Yann Hufnagel.

CORRECTION: It has come to the attention of BearTerritory that a previous text conversation printed in this article indicating that Hufnagel was meeting at Jupiter with Complainant was, instead, a conversation between Hufnagel and another reporter about meeting at Jupiter. The conversation has been excised. The screenshot of the text BearTerritory acquired came along with texts between him and the Complainant, and had the names blocked out. BearTerritory regrets the error.

Exhibits provided to BearTerritory by the University of Nevada-Reno -- where former California coach Yann Hufnagel was hired last week, after dropping his appeal of the termination proceedings -- show that the conclusions drawn from the sexual harassment report filed by the University of California Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination may be based on incomplete evidence.

Hufnagel dropped his appeal of the termination proceedings because, as his lawyer, Mary McNamara said in a statement, "The toxic environment at UC Berkeley has made it impossible for Mr. Hufnagel to rejoin the basketball team he loves, even if he is vindicated in full, as the facts would show. He needs to look out for the student-athletes he coached, as well as his own future.  Earlier this morning and after much consideration, he decided it was time to move on."

The next day, he was hired by the Wolf Pack, saying that he dropped his appeal because of the impending hiring, stating a desire to move on. These documents were provided to Nevada during the hiring process.

In the Cal OPHD report, analyzed in-depth here, the Complainant -- a female reporter covering the team -- states that Hufnagel propositioned her for sex on the night of Jan. 24, 2015, and that after she rejected his advances, she was no longer able to obtain the information to do her job, and was let go. These new documents show that, on no fewer than four separate occasions in the three months following the incident on Jan. 24, Hufnagel readily provides recruiting information and contact information for recruits to the reporter.

What is not in dispute is that Hufnagel admitted to propositioning the reporter for sex on the night of Jan. 24.

While the over 900 text messages released to BearTerritory were given to the University only after termination proceedings had begun, and not during the initial investigation, University spokesman Dan Moguloff said last week in an e-mail that Hufnagel had been encouraged to present any evidence that would help his case during the initial investigation.

"The investigators could not be more clear on this point: They explicitly requested any information or materials that Mr. Hufnagel felt were relevant or corroborated his account," Moguloff said. "After initially providing about a dozen text messages, he did follow-up with two additional emails and attachments—that and no more---the week after his interview with an investigator. In other words, there was nothing preventing him from submitting anything that he believed to be relevant and helpful—quite the contrary, he was urged to ... I am also unclear how an investigator could ask about a text exchange that was withheld from the investigation."

Page 4 of the OPHD document, concerning the Complainant's statement, reads:

Complainant recalled waiting for an hour and a half after the game while Respondent was in a meeting. She said at about 11:30 p.m., Respondent finished the meeting and told Complainant, "We're going to a bar." Complainant said she wanted to find a coffee shop, but Respondent insisted on a bar; and Complainant suggested Jupiter because it had food too.

Hufnagel and the Complainant drove back to his apartment -- who drove, and in what car, were facts not consistent between the two accounts -- because he maintained to the Complainant that he was too drunk to drive. However, an Uber receipt does show that he got an Uber the next morning, at 10:31 a.m., taking him from his apartment to a Cal parking garage on the corner of Channing and Ellsworth. That supports the Complainant's statement that she drove Hufnagel back in her car, and his was left at the parking lot.

In the OPHD report, the Complainant says that there was no place for her to park outside the apartment, to drop Hufnagel off, as there was (and photos corroborate) a red curb from the corner all the way to the garage door. However, Google Maps images provided in the documents show that, just past the garage door is a parking lot for a bakery and a Starbucks in the mixed-use building, where the Complainant could have pulled off the road.

"I couldn't pull over because even at that hour there was plant of fast-moving traffic," the Complainant said in her reporting e-mail, a source says, to multiple persons at the University on July 5. "He opened his garage, and I drove in, thinking he had done so because the traffic wouldn't have allowed me to simply stop on the street safely. As soon as I drove in, the garage door closed behind me, and he motioned for me to pull into a spot."

Page 4 of the OPHD report, again, concerning the reporter's statement, says:

Complainant recalled driving Respondent to his apartment [REDACTED] -- a street corner she described as being busy. Complainant said Respondent opened his apartment building's community parking garage for Complainant to drive her car into. Complainant said she did drive into the garage because there was no place on the street to pull over. Complainant said, once in the garage, Respondent directed her to park in a designated spot -- an elevator-operated "lift" spot which would have suspended her car above the ground. Complainant said she did not park in the spot and felt respondent was attempting to control her ability to leave. She recalled telling Respondent that she was just going to turn around; to which Respondent responded, "You're coming up." Complainant said she said, "No. I'm going to leave now," but Respondent kept insisting. Complainant said she asked Respondent, "Are you thinking that I'm going to have sex with you?" to which Respondent said, "Yes."

Hufnagel would later admit to "trying to trick" the Complainant into going upstairs and having sex with him. He does not deny the sexual advances in any way. However, in texts Hufnagel's camp provided earlier this month, he does contend that the relationship was mutually flirtatious. The report continues:

Complainant recalled telling Respondent, "Not going to happen ... [REDACTED] ... you and I are professional colleagues ... not interested in you." Complainant noted that at that point the garage door was closed behind them with her car inside and Respondent indicated he did not intend to let her out of the garage.

Hufnagel provided a video of the garage door in his apartment complex on the corner of Telegraph and Ashby opening automatically, without the opener fob, when a car pulls up to the door from the inside. The report continues:

Complainant recalled that she felt scared and ordered Respondent, "Let me the fuck out of here." She recalled Respondent "talked about oral sex," "[Complainant] giving him oral sex." Complainant estimated remaining in the garage with Respondent for about 15 minutes. During that time, Complainant recalled being in the car for most of the time and Respondent being out of the car for most of the time. Complainant said Respondent did not touch her on that occasion or any other occasion.

The crux of the complainant's complaint to the University was that she was unable to do her job, and was subsequently let go from her job. The texts provided by Mr. Hufnagel's attorneys show a different story. As of Feb. 19, three weeks after the garage incident, the Complainant and Hufnagel were freely exchanging recruiting information. She asks if a recruit is coming that weekend, while Hufnagel is at the Hoop Hall open event, he says that a redacted recruit is, and that he just got off the phone with another recruit, who does not have an offer yet.

On March 19, the reporter asks for contact information for two recruits, and he provides he with contact information for both.

The event into which the reporter was trying to get in late March -- the CIF Boy's Basketball championship games at Haas Pavilion -- also shows up. While the reporter contends that Hufnagel did not get her a press pass for the event out of spite for her rejecting his advances, the texts presented by Hufnagel show that he told her "I can't get any1 in."

Hufnagel then asks, presumably, what another reporter is doing to get in, and the Complainant says she does not know.

The conversation reads:

Complainant: Hey Yanni. CIF won't credential me and I would like to be able to go to the O'Dowd game tomorrow. Is there any way you can get me in?

YH: Just buy a ticket.

YH: I think that's easy right?

C: So you're unable to help?

YH: [REDACTED PHOTO]

C: Oh great I'll be sure to present that picture at the door tomorrow that helps a lot

YH: I can't get any1 in.

YH: What is [REDACTED] doing?

C: Idk we aren't like buddies.

YH: Ok

On March 17, the Complainant provided screen shots of texts in which Hufnagel appears to be suggesting a threesome with her and another party. The Complainant deflects these advances. From Page 9 of the OPHD report:

Respondent denied that he was less helpful to Complainant about supplying information to Complainant after mid-March 2015 text exchange.

On March 30, the reporter asks for the phone number of a recruit, at 4:36 p.m., and Hufnagel then sends the number, though it is redacted.

On March 31, Hufnagel told the reporter, "I'll give u some scoop I haven't given any1 else. [REDACTED] met with [REDACTED] today. You work hard. I respect it."

On April 7, 2015, at 3:06 p.m., Hufnagel tells the reporter that a recruit (name redacted) is on campus that weekend, when the reporter asks what is new with recruits this week.

Later on April 7, the reporter says that the next couple days are "pretty exciting for you huh" and Hufnagel responds with "We'll see!!" and then later, "You probably have all the scoop!"

On April 11, 2015, at 9:14 a.m., Hufnagel explicitly tells the reporter that a previously discussed prospect committed that morning, after which the reporter says, "Congratulations I'm so happy for you."

It is only after, Witness 1 (head coach Cuonzo Martin) says in his testimony, the reporter stated that recruiting information in one of her message board posts came "From Cal BB staff member," (the admission publicly of which would be an NCAA violation) that the texts and information exchanges between Hufnagel and the Complainant, provided by Hufnagel's legal team to Nevada, end. In the OPHD report, it's stated that Hufnagel "read [Complainant] the riot act," and deleted her number from his phone, calling her behavior unprofessional.

Had Hufnagel submitted this evidence -- evidence that clearly enabled him to get a job at another Division I program in short order -- before termination proceedings were concluded (he was only issued a notice of intent to terminate on March 14, and was not outright fired), would the outcome have been different? Was it two people using one another in a mutual flirtation? As we await the outcome of the review of the reporting process, does this new evidence impact the conclusions of that review, because this evidence was not presented, initially? How much of this information was known by the individuals that this was reported to, on July 5 -- a Holiday weekend -- to multiple individuals at the University, and then forwarded on to the proper authorities on July 7, less than 36 hours later? Those are the questions that arise from the release of this information.


BearTerritory.net Top Stories