By Freya Parker 
In a high-profile case filed in February 2022, Michael Mozilo is at the center of a legal battle that highlights issues of power, privilege, and institutional negligence. The lawsuit, filed by John Doe, a former student-athlete at Loyola Marymount University (LMU), alleges severe harassment and bullying by Mozilo, who was a fellow golf team member. The lawsuit also implicates LMU for failing to act on these allegations, shedding light on the dark side of collegiate athletics, where wealth and influence can overshadow student safety and well-being.
Michael Mozilo and the Privilege of Wealth: How Power Dynamics Shaped the Golf Team
John Doe’s story began in 2018 when he enrolled at LMU on an athletic scholarship to play golf. Coming from a modest background, Doe quickly became one of the top performers on the team. However, despite his talent, Doe was never fully accepted by the other members, who mostly came from wealthy, privileged backgrounds. This divide between privileged students and others created an environment where Doe, though exceptional on the field, was pushed to the margins socially.
In the same year, Michael Mozilo joined the golf team, a student-athlete whose spot was allegedly secured not by his golfing skills, but through the financial influence of his father, who made a substantial donation to the university. According to the lawsuit, Mozilo’s admission to the team was more about his family’s wealth than his athletic ability. This, the lawsuit claims, gave Mozilo a sense of entitlement and privilege, and set the stage for him to target Doe as a victim of his bullying.
Michael Mozilo: The Allegations of Harassment and Invasion of Privacy
The most disturbing incident outlined in the lawsuit occurred during an October 2018 team trip. The lawsuit claims that while John Doe was in a private moment, taking a bath in a hotel bathroom, Michael Mozilo barged into the room, secretly activated his phone’s camera, and filmed Doe while he was nude. When Doe requested Mozilo to stop, he allegedly refused and taunted him.
The abuse didn’t end there. The following day, as the golf team was driven back to the airport by coach Jason D’Amore, Mozilo began showing the video to the rest of the team. According to the lawsuit, the video humiliated Doe, who was already vulnerable, by playing it in front of the team without his consent. The taunting continued, and Mozilo allegedly threatened to post the video on Instagram, further adding to Doe’s distress.
The coach, Jason D’Amore, who was present during the van ride, did nothing to intervene. His failure to act or stop the situation has been cited in the lawsuit as a serious breach of responsibility and duty to protect the athletes under his supervision.
Michael Mozilo’s Privilege and Loyola Marymount University’s Role in the Case
At the heart of this case is Michael Mozilo’s privileged status, largely attributed to his family’s financial power. The lawsuit contends that Mozilo’s wealth allowed him to behave with impunity, knowing that his actions would likely go unchecked by the university. It also suggests that Loyola Marymount University’s focus on securing financial donations, such as those made by Mozilo’s father, led to a failure to protect Doe from the abuse he experienced.
The university is accused of allowing the harassment to persist, and of not intervening despite clear signs that Doe was suffering emotionally and psychologically due to the abuse. The case raises important questions about how universities balance their financial interests with their duty to protect students, particularly those who do not have the same social or financial standing as their peers.
The Failure of Coach D’Amore: A Breach of Duty
Coach Jason D’Amore, who was responsible for overseeing the team, is also named in the lawsuit. The allegations suggest that D’Amore not only failed to stop Mozilo’s behavior but also ignored the public humiliation that Doe was subjected to in the van. His failure to address the situation directly is cited as another example of the institution’s negligence in handling the situation.
Athletic programs are supposed to serve as an environment of growth, discipline, and respect. When a coach fails to intervene in the face of harassment and bullying, it sends the message that such behavior is tolerated, or at the very least, overlooked. In this case, Michael Mozilo’s behavior was allegedly ignored, and the lack of action from D’Amore only exacerbated the harm done to Doe.
The Bigger Picture: How Power, Privilege, and Money Shape College Athletics
The Michael Mozilo lawsuit is more than just an individual grievance; it reflects a larger systemic issue within collegiate athletics: the intersection of power, privilege, and financial influence. Universities like LMU, which rely heavily on wealthy donors and successful athletic programs, are often caught in a dilemma where the well-being of students may be overshadowed by the desire to maintain high-profile, lucrative sports programs.
Mozilo’s privilege, as depicted in the lawsuit, allowed him to act with a sense of impunity. For students like John Doe, who lack similar financial backing or social influence, the lack of institutional support can make them vulnerable to mistreatment. The fact that Doe’s harasser was allowed to continue his behavior unchecked speaks to the broader issue of how power dynamics in sports programs can negatively impact students who lack power or privilege.
Loyola Marymount University’s Legal and Ethical Responsibility
The central issue in this case revolves around Loyola Marymount University’s legal and ethical obligations to its students. Universities are not only institutions of education but also spaces where students should feel safe and protected. The lawsuit claims that LMU’s failure to act after the harassment was reported reflects a disregard for student welfare in favor of financial and social status. The university’s lack of intervention in a situation that clearly involved bullying and privacy violations speaks to the potential pitfalls of prioritizing donations over student safety.
LMU’s responsibility, according to the lawsuit, goes beyond providing a space for academic and athletic growth—it must also ensure that all students are treated with respect and that those in power, such as coaches and wealthy athletes, do not use their influence to harm others. This case is an example of how institutions must remain vigilant in preventing abuse and upholding a standard of accountability for all students.
Legal and Social Impact: What This Case Means for College Sports
The ongoing legal battle between Michael Mozilo and John Doe could have far-reaching consequences for collegiate sports programs. If the court rules in favor of Doe, it may set a significant legal precedent that holds universities accountable for not taking action in harassment cases. It would send a clear message that educational institutions must prioritize the protection and safety of all students—regardless of their financial status or athletic prowess.
On a broader scale, this case highlights the need for universities to reassess how they handle issues of harassment and abuse, particularly in sports programs where power imbalances are often amplified. Universities must be proactive in creating clear policies that address harassment, safeguard student privacy, and ensure that those in positions of power—whether they are athletes or coaches—are held accountable for their actions.
Conclusion: The Future of University Accountability
The case of Michael Mozilo and John Doe is an eye-opening example of how power, privilege, and financial influence can shape the experiences of students in collegiate athletics. It underscores the need for universities to take a more active role in ensuring that all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background or athletic ability, are treated with respect and dignity.
As this lawsuit progresses, it will undoubtedly spark broader conversations about the role of privilege in college sports, the responsibility of universities to protect their students, and the ethical implications of allowing financial contributions to dictate how student-athletes are treated. The outcome of this case could play a pivotal role in reshaping how colleges handle harassment and student safety moving forward.