PITTSBURGH – A man formerly housed at the George Junior Republic rehabilitation and treatment center and who alleged he was subjected to sexual abuse by one of his female counselors there in 2015 when he was just 16 years old, is arguing that the facility’s preliminary objections to his suit should be overruled.
K.M.J. of Wilkes-Barre first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 7 versus George Junior Republic, George Junior Republic Realty, George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania, all of Grove City, plus George Junior Republic in Indiana, Inc., of Columbus, Ind.
According to the suit, George Junior receives “clients” as part of a referral program wherein delinquent youths are legally sent to a specific George Junior facility as part of a rehabilitation or treatment process. George Junior conducts a Prospective Client Interview which includes the reason for the referral and determines, based on other factors, whether the client is fit for the recommended program.
George Junior is a treatment center that serves almost exclusively legally referred clients and had numerous facilities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a corporate headquarters in Chester County.
“Plaintiff was court-ordered to reside at George Junior Republic. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was a victim of sexual abuse during his time at defendant George Junior’s facility by its staff members, including Jennifer. Plaintiff avers defendant knew or should have known that its employee(s) had committed acts of abuse upon one or more of the other residents of its facility(ies) prior to the time that plaintiff herein was subjected to the acts of sexual abuse that are the subject of this filing. Plaintiff describes the following incidents involving sexual assault while he was housed at the defendant’s facility,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff was court-ordered from to reside at the defendant’s facility in approximately 2015, when he was about 16 years old. At all times material hereto, Jennifer was a staff and/or teacher and/or counselor and/or ostensible agent at/of George Junior Republic. Plaintiff does not recall the exact dates he was assaulted by Jennifer, yet avers it was during his residency. Plaintiff was forced to engage in oral sex with Jennifer. Jennifer placed her mouth onto plaintiff’s penis. While sucking on plaintiff’s penis, Jennifer said to plaintiff, ‘If he was good maybe he could get some more.”
The suit added that the physical contact made with the plaintiff’s genitals was “indecent contact for the purpose of arousing the aforementioned individual.”
“As the sole, direct, legal and proximate result of the negligence of defendant at the George Junior Republic facility, as aforesaid, plaintiff has suffered the following injuries: Plaintiff’s social ability has been injured to the extent that plaintiff cannot, or has difficulty with maintaining trust of others, forming friendships and relationships, and continues to isolate himself, and the plaintiff was deprived of educational opportunities by the defendant,” the suit stated.
“As the sole, direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligence of defendant at the George Junior Republic facility, as aforesaid, plaintiff has suffered the following damages: Immense on-going embarrassment and humiliation, loss of self-esteem and shame, emotional distress, nightmares, loss of sleep, anxiety and other physical manifestations of the injuries caused by the events described above, aggravation and/or exacerbation of pre-existing mental anguish and trauma, severe mental anguish and trauma, anxiety, depression, nausea and loss of sleep, a loss of enjoyment of life, a loss of the ability to form relationships and inability to trust others, a loss of earnings and earning capacity during those periods, plaintiff was unable to work due to trauma and loss of educational opportunities.”
The George Junior Republic defendants have currently been named in more than 40 cases in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 24 of which were filed on April 7.
George Junior Republic filed preliminary objections on April 26, arguing that the plaintiff has failed to plead several of his claims with proper, mandatory sufficiency under the law.
“George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania and George Junior Republic are separate legal entities, with George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania as the entity running the facility in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. The factual assertions in plaintiff’s complaint exclusively pertain to events alleged to have occurred at the facility in Mercer County, Pennsylvania and perpetrated exclusively by alleged employees of George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania. As such, George Junior Republic should be dismissed and the caption should be amended accordingly,” per the objections.
“George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania and George Junior Republic Realty are separate legal entities, with George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania as the entity running the facility in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. The factual assertions in plaintiff’s complaint exclusively pertain to events alleged to have occurred at the facility operated by George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania in Mercer County, Pennsylvania and perpetrated exclusively by alleged employees of George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania. As such, George Junior Republic Realty should be dismissed and the caption should be amended accordingly.”
For identical reasons, the defendants argued that George Junior Republic in Indiana should be dismissed from the complaint as well – and that the allegations were not properly pled, as required by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital.
“In the present case, plaintiff makes highly inflammatory claims of wrongdoing on the part of alleged, but unidentified, individuals throughout the complaint. Plaintiff purports to recall events involving ‘Jennifer’, but provides no other identification. While the allegations are sensational, they lack any specific details as to time, date or location. The complaint also fails to identify any other alleged agent or employee,” the objections continued.
“Plaintiff fails to apprise defendant of the specific allegations being voiced and the factual predicate for those claims, creating an unfair prejudice to defendants’ ability to formulate its defense. As a fact-pleading jurisdiction, the rules require that defendants be apprised of specific allegations being voiced against them and the identities of the alleged agents or employees. Accordingly, due to the overarching vague nature in which the claims have been pled, defendant respectfully requests that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.”
The objections added that the plaintiff had not shown where the defendants committed a breach of fiduciary duty, a denial of educational opportunities or had engaged in gross negligence against the plaintiff.
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel answered the preliminary objections on May 16, generally denying them and providing that the facility failed in its duty to keep the plaintiff safe from harm and the complaint was “rife with allegations of George Junior Republic’s extreme departures of care.”
“George Junior Republic purports to be a service provider for youth with disabilities and advanced behavioral and mental health needs. Thus, GJR owes a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the youth they serve. When a child is placed in a GJR facility, that entity assumes the fiduciary duty to ensure that the child receives appropriate care and is safe from foreseeable harm. In the instant case, plaintiff was a youth in the care of GJR when he was sexually and physically assaulted by adult GJR employees who were acting in the scope and with the authority of their positions at GJR. GJR failed in its fiduciary duty to protect the youth in their care from the abuse of its own employees,” the answer stated, in part.
For counts of negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring and retention, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior liability, breach of fiduciary duty, denial of educational opportunities and gross negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and severally, in excess of $75,000, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, costs and damages for pre-judgment delay, punitive damages and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by David Wesley Cornish of Cornerstone Legal Group, plus Jeffrey F. Parker and Brent Wieand of Wieand Law Firm, all in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by David R. Johnson and Daniel J. Margonari of Burns White, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-004779
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com