By Lev D. Zilbermints
In the first part of this article, published on March 27, “Local Talk” wrote about the controversy surrounding the 22nd and current president of Seton Hall University, Monsignor Joseph Reilly. The controversy has to do with the fact that Monsignor Reilly was appointed president by the Board of Regents even though he knew, and did not report, sexual assault allegations against seminarians to university administration as required by SHU sexual harassment policies.
In Part II “Local Talk” takes a look at the 2019 Latham Report; the Seton Hall University Lawsuit against ex-president Joseph Nyre; the response of the SHU community to the controversy; and what Title IX laws say about releasing information. As usual, Local Talk performs diligent research and cites its sources.
The Latham Report
At the heart of the controversy is a 2019 report issued by the international law firm Latham & Watkins. According to the March 19, 2025 New Jersey Monitor, “Seton Hall commissioned the report as part of its effort to review the actions of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who led the Archdiocese of Newark for 14 years and was removed from the ministry in 2018 over allegations that he sexually abused a teenager while serving as a priest in New York.”
According to a Seton Hall University internal letter to Monsignor Joseph Reilly dated November 25, 2024, “Latham attorneys orally presented those conclusions to the BOR [Board of Regents] at a specially convened meeting on August 27, 2017 (the “Special Meeting”), and Latham issued a written report detailing them on September 6, 2019 (“the Latham Report”).”
If the oral presentation was made in 2017 and the written report, in 2019, the question is, why did it take two years to write up the report? Was it because there was so much information to go over, or for some other reasons?
Conclusions of the Latham Report
According to the SHU letter of November 25, 2019, the conclusions of the report are: (a) as alleged, the former Archbishop engaged in sexual harassment during his tenure; (b) certain current and former SHU employees holding leadership positions, current and former BOR members, and current BOT members were aware of the former Archbishop’s misconduct while it was occurring, but for various reasons, failed to report that conduct; and (d) certain SHU employees, current BOR members, and current BOT members had knowledge harassment by or against ICS seminarians, but did not report that conduct to SHU administrators in accordance with the University’s sexual harassment policies. …”
Monsignor Reilly received the 2019 letter because he was “one of the individuals implicated in the Latham Report.”
According to the November 25, 2019 letter, “Upon learning of the Latham investigation findings, and again acting in accordance with its ethical and legal obligations as the governing body of a Catholic university, the BOR unanimously passed a resolution on August 27, 2019, (the “BOR Resolution”) approving a Responsive Action Plan, crafted by outside counsel, to address the misconduct of the involved individuals. The BOR Resolution provides, in pertinent part:
(1) any employee or Board member who did not participate in the independent review cannot continue as an employee, Board member, or reside on campus;
(2) any BOT member, BOR member, or current employee in a leadership position at the time of the former Archbishop’s misconduct who both (a) had knowledge of that conduct; and (b) failed to report it or take action to protect ICS seminarians cannot serve as an administrator or a BOR or BOT member and cannot serve in any leadership position at SHU;
(3) any current employee, BOT member, or BOR member with knowledge of sexual misconduct claims involving ICS seminarians (separate and apart from the allegations against the former Archbishop) who failed to (a) report that conduct; or (b) take action about it as required by SHU’s sexual harassment policies cannot continue as a Board member or serve in any SHU leadership position;
(4) any person who engaged in the conduct described in subsections one through three above might not be permitted to reside in SHU university housing, depending upon the severity of the person’s conduct; and
(5) before any corrective action is taken, all individuals implicated in the Latham Report who are currently SHU employees or BOT or BOR members will be given the opportunity to (a) voluntarily resign his position; or (b) respond to the Latham Report’s findings at a meeting of a Special Task Force comprising BOT/BOR members appointed by the BOR Chair in consultation with the BOT Chair (the “Task Force”); or (c) neither resign nor appear before the Task Force.
The Task Force’s goals are to provide each implicated individual with due process, proceed in good faith, and ensure confidentiality. All final decisions regarding the implementation of personnel recommendations set forth in the Responsive Action Plan will be made by the BOR after the Task Force has met, reviewed the relevant facts, and made its recommendations to the Chair of the BOR. The opportunity to respond to the Latham Report findings is solely for the purpose of providing mitigating information and evidence bearing upon the appropriate sanction to be imposed in light of those findings. It is not an opportunity to contest, dispute, or appeal the factual findings in the Latham Report.
The Latham Report found that you were aware of sexual harassment allegations involving ICS seminarians and did not report such allegations to SHU officials, in violation of the university’s Title IX policies. The Latham investigators also found that you declined to answer questions regarding certain sexual harassment at SAH of which you were aware during your time as Rector of ICS. As a result, the Responsive Action Plan recommends that the Archbishop of Newark remove you from your position as Rector of ICS. The Responsive Action Plan also recommends that you be removed from your position on the BOT and the Board of Overseers, but that you be permitted to continue as a faculty member and to continue living on the SHU campus, provided you enter into a housing license agreement, a form of which will be provided to you by the University.
A second letter, dated February 18, 2020, states that Monsignor Reilly “submitted to an unrestricted interview on January 21, 2020, regarding events involving alleged sexual harassment at the College Seminary at St. Andrew’s Hall that may have occurred in approximately spring and summer 2014, during which you were Rector/Dean of Immaculate Conception Seminary. …”
The letter goes on to say that since Reilly shared what he knew about sexual harassment with investigators, they no longer have problems with him not answering questions.
Murky Business
At this point things get murky. Seton Hall University has sued Reilly’s predecessor, the 21st president, Joseph Nyre. The school is accusing the former 21st president of being the source for Politico’s information about Seton Hall University’s internal affairs.
According to court papers, SHU alleges that Dr. Joseph Nyre is guilty of “illicitly accessing, downloading, maintaining, and later disseminating confidential and proprietary documents, as well as documents protected by the attorney – client and work product privileges and information after his departure as President of the University.” The school accused Nyre of trying to “create a false impression about Reilly.”
According to the SHU lawsuit, “…on or about February 19, 2020, Defendant [Nyre] received a copy of a draft letter prepared by the University’s then-outside legal counsel and addressed to Rev. Msgr. Joseph Reilly (“Reilly Letter”). The Reilly letter is a highly confidential document.
Defendant knew that the Reilly Letter was in an initial draft form, was not approved for dissemination, and was never sent to Rev. Msgr. Reilly.
But for his employment as President of the University, Defendant would not have been given access to any of the University’s confidential information, including the Reilly Letter.”
“Following his departure from the University, it has now been confirmed that Defendant has unlawfully accessed, retained, retrieved, and downloaded confidential documents and other proprietary data, information and documents,” state Seton Hall University’s court papers.
Unanswered Questions. Similarities to 1971 Pentagon Papers case.
The lawsuit raises more questions than it answers. To begin with, can an independent investigation verify that Dr. Joseph Nyre allegedly gave information to Politico? Also, Politico’s sources are protected and cannot be revealed. The question is, could someone else other than ex-President Joseph Nyre be the source? Lastly, this is similar to the Pentagon Papers case of 1971. Back then, the New York Times published a top-secret history of Vietnam. There was a furor about the leak back then. Fifty-fur years later, a private university is raising a furor because its dirty secrets have been bared. History does repeat itself.
Seton Hall Lawsuit Against Joseph Reilly
In its 23-page lawsuit against its former president, Joseph Reilly, Seton Hall University has alleged that Joseph Nyre is guilty of several counts.
Count 1 accuses Joseph Nyre and John Does 1-10, fictitiously named individuals, of Equitable and Injunctive Relief – Compelling Defendant to Comply with His Employment Agreement and Separation Agreement.
Count 2 accuses Joseph Nyre et al., of Breach of Contract.
Count 3 accuses Joseph Nyre et al., of Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
Count 4 accuses Joseph Nyre et al., of Violation of the Computer Related Offenses Act – New Jersey Statutes Annotated 2A: 38 -1 et seq.
The lawsuit also states that Joseph Nyre may have violated FERPA, which “expressly prohibits the University from disclosing certain educational records of students or former students without consent from a student or designated representative. … FERPA does not simply protect the disclosure of student’s names; it protects the disclosure of any personally identifiable information.”
Another allegation against Joseph Nyre et al., is the violation of a Confidential Information Policy, which expressly prohibits, among other things: “[d]iscuss[ing] verbally or distribut[ing] in electronic or print formats, confidential information except as needed to conduct campus business as required by his/her position;” [g]ain[ing] or attempting to gain unauthorized access to campus computing systems;” and “[d]isclos[ing] confidential information to those not authorized to receive it.”
According to the February 19, 2025 Inside Higher Education, Nyre attorney Mathew Luber called the lawsuit “a desperate, retaliatory ploy designed to silence a whistleblower and distract from the university’s own corruption and misconduct.”
Luber did not specifically address the allegations that Nyre had inappropriately leaked confidential documents but accused Seton Hall University in ignoring red flags in hiring Reilly and overlooking Title IX infractions.
“Let’s be clear: Dr. Nyre was not at Seton Hall university when Monsignor Reilly engaged in misconduct, nor when the board knowingly violated its own policies and Title IX to install him as President,” Luber wrote Inside Higher Education. “But he was the one who warned university officials about Reilly’s disqualifying history during his presidential search – warnings that were deliberately ignored by board leadership. Instead of addressing their own failures, Seton Hall is now attempting to smear and intimidate Dr. Nyre.”
