The Todd Kress allegations resurfaced in October 2024 when San Jose State University’s Title IX office received a decades-old letter describing an alleged 1998 incident, according to emails and reporting by Fox News Digital. Fox News Digital reviewed internal emails and public records correspondence that show university officials discussed the letter amid a broader federal Title IX review tied to the 2024 season.
What the 1998 letter alleges
As reported by Fox News Digital, the letter the former Fairfield player shared with SJSU was originally written to Fairfield University in 1998 and describes an alleged hotel-room attack following a 1998 NCAA Tournament game. The letter recounts the writer saying she was taken into a hotel room, smeared with a sticky substance, forced toward a bed and into a bathtub, and threatened; it also describes teammates and a coach consuming alcohol. Fox News Digital says it verified the writer’s 1998 roster connection to Fairfield under then-coach Todd Kress. These are allegations reported in the letter and have not been independently proven in court or in publicly released primary documents.
How SJSU officials responded to the Todd Kress allegations in 2024
Fox News Digital reviewed emails that show SJSU Athletic Director Jeff Konya acknowledged receipt of the Oct. 24, 2024 submission, saying he would “share [the correspondence] with the proper authorities on the SJSU campus for additional review.” That acknowledgment is recorded in the email chain published by Fox News Digital.
On Nov. 4, 2024, Peter Lim, identified in university correspondence as the interim Title IX and Gender Equity Officer, scheduled a meeting with the former player and her attorney. Lim wrote that a meeting could help assess “potential next steps, which may or may not include an investigation into the reported conduct,” language Fox News Digital published from the emails.
Lim’s Nov. 7 follow-up included an apology for the player’s prior experiences and said SJSU was “evaluating the information.” Fox News Digital reports there was no public record of further correspondence or of a publicly disclosed, completed internal investigation after those November 2024 exchanges.
Title IX and federal findings tied to the 2024 season
The U.S. Department of Education (ED), through its Office for Civil Rights, conducted a Title IX review tied to SJSU’s handling of complaints during the 2024 controversy. ED’s written findings, as described in reporting, reference an unnamed “Coach 2” and criticize the university’s decision not to suspend that coach during the dispute; the ED review characterizes certain campus decisions as inconsistent with Title IX obligations (attribution: U.S. Department of Education findings as summarized by reporting).
Fox News Digital reported that, based on the timing and details in ED documents and the university record, it “reasonably believes” the unnamed “Coach 2” refers to Todd Kress. That identification is a reporting inference and is not explicitly named in the ED documents; the ED documents do not publicly name the coach tied to the label “Coach 2.” San Jose State University and the California State University system have filed suit to challenge the ED findings, and the university disputes the characterization of its actions in court (attribution: SJSU/CSU legal filings and Fox News Digital reporting).
The ED materials referenced in reporting say university officials considered concerns about media attention and team disruption when weighing removal of the coach — actions ED characterized as improper in its findings. Those statements about ED conclusions are drawn from the Department of Education’s findings letter as reported by the press.
Public records denial and the university’s privacy claim
Fox News Digital filed a public records request on June 9, 2026, seeking the Oct. 24, Nov. 1 and Nov. 7, 2024 communications. According to Fox News Digital’s reporting of the university response, on June 22, 2026 SJSU acknowledged the records’ existence but denied public release under California’s Public Records Act on the basis of substantial privacy interests.
University counsel J. Leah Castella is quoted in the denial letter as saying the requested communications were withheld under personnel and privacy exemptions and that disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy that “outweighs the public interest in disclosure,” per the university’s June 22, 2026 response as published by Fox News Digital.
Background (optional)
San Jose State previously faced separate federal scrutiny involving athletics after the Department of Justice examined the university’s handling of sexual-assault complaints tied to a former athletics staff member; that matter led to a settlement and corrective measures to address identified failures (attribution: Department of Justice announcements and SJSU statements). The 2024 Title IX review occurred amid heightened campus controversy and public attention to team and coaching decisions.
Why it matters
The combination of a decades-old allegation being shared during an active Title IX review, ED findings criticizing how the university weighed removing a coach, and the university’s decision to withhold records under privacy exemptions raise transparency and student-safety concerns for athletes and campus communities. Critics argue that withholding records while disputing federal findings makes it harder for the public and oversight bodies to assess whether SJSU met its Title IX responsibilities; university officials say privacy protections and personnel exemptions justify withholding sensitive communications (attribution: Fox News Digital reporting; SJSU legal counsel statements).
What comes next: legal and investigative steps to watch (optional)
- CSU/SJSU lawsuit challenging ED’s Title IX findings — court rulings could affect what documents become public (attribution: SJSU/CSU court filings).
- Any court-ordered disclosure or FOIA/CPRA litigation over the June 22, 2026 denial that could unseal the Oct.–Nov. 2024 communications (attribution: Fox News Digital reporting of the records denial).
- Whether SJSU’s internal Title IX office pursued investigative steps after the Nov. 4–7 meetings, including interviews of former or current players — reporters should seek documentary confirmation of any formal investigation (attribution: record requests, university statements).
- Potential follow-up by regulators or prosecutors if corroborated, new evidence emerges from interviews or disclosed records (attribution: standard oversight processes).
Key takeaways and timeline (optional)
- Dec. 1998 — Alleged incident described in the letter, occurring after a Fairfield NCAA Tournament game (as described in the letter reported to SJSU; attribution: Fox News Digital reporting).
- Oct. 24, 2024 — Former Fairfield player shares the 1998 letter with SJSU; Jeff Konya acknowledges receipt in emails reviewed by Fox News Digital.
- Nov. 4–7, 2024 — Peter Lim schedules and follows up on a meeting with the player and her attorney; university correspondence said SJSU was evaluating next steps.
- 2024–2025 — Coach remained in position during the season; ED later issued Title IX findings criticizing the university’s decision-making process regarding not suspending an unnamed coach (attribution: U.S. Department of Education findings as summarized in reporting).
- June 9, 2026 — Fox News Digital submits a CPRA request; June 22, 2026 — SJSU denies the request citing privacy exemptions, per Fox News Digital reporting.
FAQ
What did the former Fairfield player allege in the 1998 letter?
According to the letter shared with SJSU and published in reporting, the player alleged a hotel-room attack after a 1998 NCAA game that included forced contact, threats and intoxication by team members and a coach. These claims are presented in the letter and have not been independently verified in publicly released documents (attribution: Fox News Digital).
Did San Jose State suspend Todd Kress after the letter was received?
No public records show a suspension occurred after SJSU received the 1998 letter in October 2024; reporting indicates the coach continued to lead the team into 2025. The ED Title IX findings criticized the university’s decision not to suspend an unnamed coach during the 2024 controversy, but the ED report does not explicitly name the coach; Fox News Digital reported it believes the reference is to Todd Kress (attribution: Fox News Digital; U.S. Department of Education findings as reported).
What did the Department of Education find and how does it relate to these allegations?
The ED Title IX review, as summarized in reporting, concluded SJSU made decisions inconsistent with Title IX obligations when it did not remove an unnamed coach during the 2024 disputes and appeared to weigh media attention and team disruption in that decision. The ED findings do not mention the 1998 letter; the connection between the ED “Coach 2” label and Todd Kress is a reporting inference, not an explicit naming in ED documents (attribution: U.S. Department of Education findings; Fox News Digital).
Sources
Main reporting: Fox News Digital, “SJSU told decades-old allegations against volleyball coach during controversial 2024 season” — https://www.foxnews.com/sports/sjsu-told-decades-old-allegations-against-volleyball-coach-during-controversial-2024-season (attribution: Fox News Digital reporting and the internal emails and records that outlet reviewed).
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) materials and Title IX findings referenced in reporting: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html (see OCR findings letter to SJSU as cited in reporting).
California Public Records Act context and SJSU records denial as reported: SJSU counsel’s June 22, 2026 response to the CPRA request is described in the Fox News Digital story above; for background on California public-records law see the California Attorney General open-government resources: https://oag.ca.gov/open-government.
All factual claims about investigations, findings or decisions in this story are attributed to the named sources above (Fox News Digital reporting; U.S. Department of Education findings as summarized in reporting; SJSU/CSU legal filings and counsel statements). Where identification is not explicit in primary ED documents (for example the “Coach 2” label), that link is described as a reporting inference rather than a confirmed fact.
