The lawsuit, filed Sept. 9 in federal court in Detroit, alleges that abusive hazing rituals occurred between 1984 and 2001.
The 16 plaintiffs are proceeding anonymously as βJohn Does,β citing the deeply personal nature of their allegations.
According to the 74-page complaint, younger players were allegedly subjected to forced nudity, genital shaving and other humiliating acts by older teammates.
Some plaintiffs also allege that razors, blowtorches and hockey equipment were used during hazing rituals.
The complaint describes the alleged conduct as βritualized, meticulously planned, and sadistic.β
The plaintiffs claim the abuse was more than unsanctioned misconduct between teammates.
They allege members of the coaching staff knew about the rituals and that players were led to believe participating was a requirement for remaining part of the Michigan hockey program.
The complaint specifically makes allegations involving former coaches Red Berenson and Mel Pearson.
Berenson coached Michigan from 1984 through 2017 and publicly announced in 2012 that freshman hazing would no longer be tolerated.
He declined to comment on the new allegations beyond saying he had just read about them and was looking into the matter.
Michigan disputes the lawsuitβs characterization of its responsibility. University spokesman Paul Corliss said the allegations are disturbing but that portions of the complaint are misleading.
He emphasized that Michigan adopted an official anti-hazing policy in 1982 and said current student-athletes receive annual training on hazing and other misconduct.
The lawsuit accuses the university and its Board of Regents of sex discrimination under Title IX and seeks unspecified damages, along with an order requiring sexualized-hazing prevention training for Michigan athletes.
Filing the lawsuit, however, does not establish that the allegations have been proven in court.
Also See: Lindsay Clancy Lawsuit: Could Hung Jury Strengthen Her Bid for a Million-Dollar Settlement?
Why the case matters
The lawsuit follows previous scrutiny of Michiganβs hockey culture.
In 2022, the university announced that Pearson would not return after an independent review examined allegations involving misconduct and the programβs workplace culture.
Michigan said at the time that the review raised concerns requiring attention.
Michigan’s current hazing policy defines prohibited conduct broadly, including behavior that creates a risk of physical or psychological injury during team membership or initiation.
The new case could therefore force the university to confront not only the former playersβ individual allegations, but also questions about what coaches and administrators allegedly knew, when they knew it and whether adequate safeguards were in place.
What happens next: Michigan and the Board of Regents will have opportunities to respond to the complaint as the federal litigation proceeds.
Further court filings and evidence could determine which allegations survive legal challenges and whether the case moves toward discovery, settlement or trial.
