PITTSBURGH – Two minor-age members of the Greater Latrobe High School wrestling team have denied that they engaged in hazing and sexual assault against a teammate of theirs, with counsel for one of the boys labeling the incident that took place as “kids play.”
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
Counsel for defendants W.S. and R.S. filed answers to the complaint (which included affirmative defenses and cross-claims) on Nov. 3 and Nov. 5, respectively.
“It is admitted the children thought they were engaged in ‘kids play.’ It is denied hazing occurred. It is denied such conduct was known to be unlawful conduct. It is denied the ‘kids play’ was frequent or limited to older children. It is denied plaintiff J.R. was only a witness. He engaged in the ‘kids play’ as most children did on the wrestling team,” the answer from W.S.’s counsel said, in part.
“It is admitted that during wrestling team practices, the vast majority of all the wrestlers were in gym shorts, T-shirts and socks, and walked to the Auxiliary Gym at the high school to wait for practice…defendants S.B. and R.S. were engaging in tying a volleyball net to plaintiff J.R.’s feet for purposes of plaintiff J.R. wrestling certain teammates with his legs tied. This was a willing activity by plaintiff J.R. The wrestling activity began while the tying was being attempted. Defendant W.S. saw this activity and began to become involved in the ‘kids play’ later in time. However, all the kids were having fun, which included plaintiff J.R. This was perceived to be ‘kids play’ without any intentions of persons being harmed or injured.”
W.S.’s answer admitted that a dowel rod was sometimes used to poke or whack at teammates, but denied that he ever attempted to forcibly or purposely use the rod to harm, injure or penetrate any person, including the plaintiff.
R.S.’s answer featured similar denials of any harmful activity towards the plaintiff.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute(s) of limitation(s). Plaintiffs’ have failed to establish that their alleged injuries and damages, without being admitted, were a direct and proximate cause of any act or omission on the part of defendant. The acts plaintiffs complain of, without being admitted, were undertaken by individuals other than defendant, over which defendant had no control,” the answer’s affirmative defenses stated.
“Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages, without being admitted, were caused in whole or in part by superseding and/or intervening causes thereby relieving defendant of liability. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, unclean hands and laches. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited because they have failed to mitigate their damages. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they have failed to exhaust all administrative remedies available to them. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the doctrine of comparative negligence and/or assumption of the risk. Defendant reserves the right to rely on any defense available in law or fact in this action and specifically reserves the right to amend, modify, or supplement the defenses stated herein as additional facts become known.”
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, Jordan L. Strassburger and Lydia A. Gorba of Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky, all in Pittsburgh, plus Kim Ross Houser of Mears Smith Houser & Boyle, in Greensburg.
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