PITTSBURGH – A Glassport church and its community food bank have denied responsibility for the alleged molestation of two young women volunteering for those groups by a fellow parishioner.
Jane Does 1-2 first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 30 versus River City Church AG (formerly known as “Glassport Assembly of God”) and Glassport Community Outreach, Inc., both of Glassport.
“The perpetrator [Dominic Muscante] was a parishioner of River City. River City ran a community food bank out of their location on 5th Street in Glassport. River City put the Perpetrator in a position of power in the food bank. The perpetrator consistently gave special attention to young female parishioners, including Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2,” the suit said.
“The special attention included but is not limited to: Giving them tickets to sporting events; buying them expensive clothing, including undergarments; buying them personal cell phones; and taking them on overnight trips, including to his home. There were several allegations made to members of River City regarding the perpetrator behaving inappropriately with young female parishioners.”
The suit added that because of the allegations regarding the perpetrator’s inappropriate behavior, the River City food bank was moved to 516 Monongahela Avenue, Glassport and began operating as “Glassport Community Outreach.”
“Jane Doe 1 was sexually abused by the perpetrator from approximately age 6 through 19. Jane Doe 2 was sexually abused by the perpetrator from approximately age 13 through 15. Upon information and belief, prior to the perpetrator’s inappropriate behavior, at least one additional employee of River City was removed from River City for inappropriate behavior with a child. Upon information and belief, none of the defendants ever reported the perpetrator to the authorities. Defendants actual or constructive knowledge of the perpetrator’s history of sexual misconduct was known to defendants prior to the cessation of plaintiffs’ abuse by perpetrator,” the suit stated.
“Defendants took no steps to protect plaintiffs or other children from the perpetrator. Defendants’ response to actual or constructive knowledge of perpetrator’s history of sexual misconduct was inadequate under the circumstances and allowed plaintiffs’ abuse by perpetrator to continue. In 2022, the perpetrator pled guilty in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas to sexual offenses related to plaintiffs. Because of the defendants’ actions and omissions herein, the plaintiffs were sexually abused, suffering severe and permanent injuries.”
Among other negligent failures, the plaintiffs said the defendants failed to establish adequate child abuse prevention policies, procedures and practices; failed to make mandatory and adhere (and ensure adherence) to such policies, procedures and practices; failed to adequately screen and supervise all those with access to children, including perpetrator; failed to retain, hire, train and supervise agents/employees with regard to the prevention of child sexual abuse and failed to adequately monitor and supervise the perpetrator and plaintiffs.
UPDATE
In preliminary objections filed on April 26, defendant River City Church AG charged that several allegations made by the plaintiffs failed to meet the requisite level of specificity.
“Beyond a basic understanding that plaintiffs allege they were sexually abused, the complaint fails to provide any factual support detailing the claims against moving defendant, thus depriving moving defendant from its ability to investigate and prepare its defenses to plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs fail to allege the time period in which the abuse allegedly took place, or even the years when it is claimed to have occurred. Furthermore, plaintiffs identify two (2) separate locations regarding a food bank run by moving defendants, but fail to specify if the alleged abuse occurred at one location, both locations, or some other place likewise not identified in the complaint,” the objections stated.
“Plaintiffs fail to provide their respective ages of majority, and thus, hinder moving defendant’s ability to investigate possible defenses implicating the relevant statute of limitations. Plaintiffs allege actual or constructive knowledge to moving defendants based on prior occurrences, but fail to identify those prior occurrences in any way – who was involved, where they took place, when, or if moving defendant was aware of these details in any way at any relevant time. Of the five basic informative labels – who, what, where, when, and how – plaintiffs fail to provide any factual information supporting the who, where, when or how related to their instant claims.”
The moving defendant argued that these factual deficiencies prevent them from receiving actual notice of the claims made against it, and likewise prevents it from investigating these claims and preparing its own defenses.
“Additionally, plaintiffs base their allegations on a specific instance of alleged abuse, but fail to identify the time and place related to this abuse, and thus, fail to meet the specificity requirements in part (f) of Rule 1019. Furthermore, the remainder of plaintiffs’ complaint runs afoul of the requirements in Rule 1019(a), in that no material facts are provided, other than the plaintiffs’ identities to be provided by counsel, and the ages at which they experienced the alleged abuse. Plaintiffs are silent as to the location(s) of the alleged abuse, the years in which it is claimed to have occurred, and is likewise silent on any facts demonstrating that moving defendant was aware of it,” the objections stated.
The moving defendant requests that this Honorable Court sustain the herein objections and require the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of entry of the corresponding order.
For counts of negligence, gross negligence and recklessness, the plaintiffs are seeking, jointly and severally, damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, including punitive damages, in addition to any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Nathaniel L. Foote and Veronica M. Hubbard of Andreozzi & Foote, in Harrisburg.
The defendants are represented by Dean F. Falavolito of O’Hagan Meyer, in Carnegie.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-004501
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com