PITTSBURGH – Greater Latrobe School District is seeking to consolidate separate lawsuits filed by current or former students and their parents, regarding incidents of alleged hazing during the time the students were members of the wrestling team.
J.R. (a minor, by and through his parents and natural guardians, Mr. R.R. and Ms. N.R., husband and wife) and Mr. R.R. and Ms. N.R., husband and wife, in their own right first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 16 versus Greater Latrobe School District, Cary James Lydic, David F. Galando, minor child R.S. and minor child W.S. All parties of Latrobe.
“Plaintiff J.R. was and is an A-student at Greater Latrobe High School. During his freshman year, J.R. was accepted into the Greater Latrobe Junior Varsity Wrestling program, where he was coached primarily by defendants Lydic and Galando. Shortly after J.R. began the 2019-2020 wrestling season, he began witnessing various acts of hazing by several other members of the wrestling team. The hazing frequently consisted of one of the older wrestlers, defendant R.S., hitting or smacking a younger teammate with a wooden stick that was kept near the practice gym,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff J.R. was personally attacked for the first time in December of 2019, when defendant R.S., J.R.’s ninth-grade teammate, struck J.R. with the wooden stick on the back of the leg. A scuffle between the two ensued, but the boys remained friends, or so J.R. thought. On Jan. 8, 2020, after returning from winter break, J.R. had finished class and was preparing to participate in wrestling practice. Since his ninth-grade classes ended at 2:45 p.m., plaintiff J.R. arrived at the gymnasium at approximately 2:50 p.m.”
At that time, plaintiff J.R. was tackled by his ninth-grade, minor-child teammate, S.B., and then pinned to the ground – face down - by S.B., defendant W.S., and defendant R.S. While Plaintiff J.R. was held down and immobilized, S.B. retrieved some rope and/or a net from an unknown location and bound the feet and hands of plaintiff J.R. Defendant W.S. remained sitting on the now-tied-up plaintiff J.R. and was joined in physically restraining plaintiff J.R. by S.B.
“By this time, Defendant R.S. had retrieved ‘the stick’ referenced above. R.S. began forcefully striking J.R. with the stick, beating him several times on the back of the legs. Defendant R.S. then took the stick and rammed it into the buttocks of plaintiff J.R. approximately five times. In doing so, R.S. forcefully and purposefully used the stick to penetrate the anus of J.R. by forcing J.R.’s shorts into his anus with the stick,” the suit said.
“The three assailants – S.B., defendant W.S., and defendant R.S. – were laughing and joking during the entirety of this sexual assault on the minor plaintiff, J.R. Defendant R.S. admitted in his juvenile delinquency proceeding that he took advantage of his physical ability and knew he ‘had control over’ his victims, and in particular, plaintiff J.R.”
At that point, the incident only ended when J.R. was finally able to wretch free from the rope and push his assailants off of him. The suit said that the assailants then proceeded to attempt to tie up J.R. for a second time, attempting to continue their assault, but J.R. managed to fight them off and gain control of the weapon used.
Defendant Galando then appeared, saw the rope and/or netting and questioned the students regarding the incident. According to the suit, the assailants denied any wrongdoing and plaintiff J.R. was “understandably was unable to verbalize what just occurred.”
According to the lawsuit, defendants District, Lydic and Galando either knowingly allowed these minor students to be unsupervised or were negligently unaware that students were being left unattended and that in either scenario, defendants Lydic and Galando and defendant District were manifestly negligent in their supervision of the minor students entrusted to their care by their unknowing parents, and of plaintiff J.R. in particular.
“The assault committed by the three assailants has left plaintiff J.R. traumatized, and its long-term effects are unknown at this time. Defendant District and defendants Lydic and Galando partook in this assault by abdicating their supervisory and caretaker responsibilities. These children were left completely unattended, despite the fact that the coaches knew that hazing was occurring and that students were physically assaulting other students,” the suit stated.
“Due to the aforementioned assaults, plaintiff J.R. has suffered, and continues to suffer, psychological trauma, embarrassment and humiliation. He was deprived of an after-school athletic program that should have improved his self-confidence and physical and mental well-being, but did just the opposite. Plaintiff J.R. must now pursue proper psychiatric treatment. J.R. has suffered and continues to suffer pain, suffering and humiliation, which no minor child should have to endure.”
UPDATE
Greater Latrobe School District filed a motion to consolidate on Sept. 2, looking to combine the instant action with another case titled J.B. Et.Al v. Greater Latrobe School District Et.Al for purposes of pre-trial proceedings and discovery only.
“The plaintiffs in the two above-captioned cases are students or former students of the district. Additional plaintiffs are the parents or guardians of these students or formal students. The facts and circumstances giving rise to both lawsuits are substantially similar. Specifically, both sets of plaintiffs’ claims arise from alleged hazing incidents which are said to have occurred on the District’s wrestling team. Both sets of plaintiffs allege that the District failed adequately prevent and respond to these alleged hazing incidents,” the motion read.
“The allegations of wrongdoing and legal theories asserted against the District in both lawsuits are substantially similar. Specifically, the complaints in both cases contain four identical counts against the District. Count I of each Complaint contains a claim of state-created danger pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Each complaint contains claim of negligence per se based on a violation of the Piazza Anti-Hazing Law, each complaint contains a claim of negligence and each complaint contains a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
As the District filed a dismissal motion in the J.B. case and as it expects to do so in the J.R. case as well, it thought that consolidating the cases’ pre-trial proceedings was the right move for judicial economy.
“Consolidation of these cases for discovery and pretrial matters will be the most expeditious and cost-effective way for the parties to engage in pretrial proceedings and to conduct discovery in these lawsuits,” the District’s motion said.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Robert J. Colville approved the motion on Sept. 8.
For counts of violating the Fourteenth Amendment through state-created danger, negligence per se, negligence, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking all monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Aimee R. Jim and Kenneth M. Baldonieri in Greensburg.
The defendants are represented by Joseph W. Cavrich and Salvatore Bittner of Andrews & Price, Joseph L. Luvara, Linda V. Hernandez and Maria V. Carr of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, and Jordan L. Strassburger and Lydia A. Gorba of Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky, all in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01088
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com