The lawsuit also claims MSU's actions or failure to act "amounted to unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination based on gender."

In MSU’s motion, lead Attorney Michael E. Baughman contended these allegations on the basis that there is no evidence showing ongoing harassment.

“Instead, they broadly state that ‘the mere presence’ of their alleged harassers on campus following their reports created a hostile environment and made them vulnerable to further harassment,’’ Baughman wrote.

MSU filed its first motion to dismiss the lawsuit in February on the basis that there is no evidence administrators failed to investigate the cases properly.

While the Title IX lawsuit contends MSU administrators acted with "deliberate indifference" to their complaints and failed to properly investigate, MSU doesn't see it that way.

Baughman wrote in MSU's motion that claims under Title IX are only valid if the plaintiff can prove intentional gender discrimination, meaning deliberate indifference to known acts of sexual harassment. 

"Schools can be liable only where they make an official decision not to address the harassment," the motion states. 

Furthermore, MSU's motion to dismiss contends MSU officials handled the cases appropriately, whether or not the accused parties were allowed to stay on campus pending the outcomes of the cases. MSU claims these actions do not violate Title IX. 

“Plaintiffs do not and cannot dispute that MSU provided assistance, resources and accommodations immediately upon receiving their reports,’’ the motion states. “That some of the accused students were permitted to remain on campus pending the outcome of the disciplinary process cannot be in violation of Title IX.”

Wednesday’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit seeks a formal hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Paul Maloney, the judge presiding over the lawsuit.