Firms file responses to ENMU complaint

The separate law firms representing defendants in a lawsuit filed by three former Eastern New Mexico University basketball team members have filed very similar responses to the team members’ complaint.

The team members alleged in their complaint filed in the New Mexico district federal court they endured sexual abuse in 2021 and 2022 at the hands of their coach’s husband, Glen de los Reyes, in medical “treatments.”

The basketball players state their coach Meghan de los Reyes required them to receive from De Los Reyes while they played basketball for ENMU.

The players’ complaint also alleges that ENMU Athletic Director Paul Weir and the ENMU’s Board of Regents, failed to act when confronted with the players’ allegations of abuse.

The responses from all four defendants – Meghan de los Reyes, her husband Glen de los Reyes, ENMU Athletic Director Paul Weir and the ENMU board of regents -- denied paragraph-by-paragraph the players’ accusations of abuse, coercion and neglect and presented similar “affirmative defenses,” which do not directly address allegations in the main complaint.

All four answers to the complaint were filed on June 23.

The regents are represented by Walz and Associates of Albuquerque. Athletic Director Paul Weir has engaged the Quinones Law Firm of Santa Fe. Former women’s basketball coach Meghan De Los Reyes is using two firms, O’Brien and Padilla in Albuquerque and the Coppler Law Firm in Santa Fe. Her husband Glen de los Reyes is represented by Adams and Crow Law Firm of Albuquerque.

ENMU parted ways with Meghan de los Reyes in April, after what the university said was a “complete review of the entire program.”

Among allegations that were denied without any detail in the defendant’s answers to the players’ complaint were the following, which were listed in an Albuquerque Journal article reprinted in the News on May 1:

• Players were required by Coach Meghan de los Reyes to see her husband Glen for treatments.

• Glen de los Reyes would make contact with the women’s breasts and vaginas during “treatments.”

• The players were ordered by coach to say falsely they had not received treatments.

• One player was denied playing time in retaliation for refusing further treatments from Glen De Los Reyes.

• Weir knew that ENMU student athletes had accused Glen de los Reyes of sexual assault in 2021 and 2022 but continued to permit Glen to “treat” students.

• Glen de los Reyes denied any wrongdoing at a meeting with Weir, other ENMU athletics officials and trainers, but said “he had secretly filmed his sessions with all students.”

• Other trainers at ENMU noted bruising on upper thighs of two of the players. Trainers reported these bruises to Weir even though the athletes had denied mistreatment from Glen de los Reyes.

• ENMU began investigating in February but took “minimal action” to protect the women from coach or Glen de los Reyes. De los Reyes was dismissed but continued to offer treatment from his home.

• Because of the defendants’ actions, the three women have been “forced to leave campus, finish the Spring 2023 semester remotely, and transfer to new schools. Their academic, athletic, and professional careers have been irreparably harmed.”

In the affirmative defenses, common themes included:

• The complaint fails to state a cause of action against each defendant upon which relief can be granted.

• At all times during the time of actions named in the suit, all defendants state they acted “in good faith,” actions were “justified and reasonable” and “were not taken with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s rights.”

• Plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary relief because money rewards would violate due process clauses of the state and U.S. constitutions.

• defendants’ alleged actions or inactions were not the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

• to the extent Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages, if any, their recovery, if any, must be barred or reduced.

• If each defendant was at fault in any respect, which is denied individually by all defendants, then the fault of all persons and entities must be considered, and liability apportioned among all persons and entities at fault.

• Defendant’s alleged conduct does not rise to the level necessary to assert violations of any of plaintiffs’ constitutional or civil rights.

• Any damages sustained by the Plaintiffs are the result of their own negligence, misconduct, acts or omissions. This either bars plaintiffs’ claims or reduces their claims by an amount to be determined at trial.

• Plaintiffs’ belated request to proceed under pseudonyms (“Jane Doe”) is improper. There is no basis in law or fact for the use of pseudonyms for the Plaintiffs.