WILLIAMSPORT – A federal judge has ordered that a gymnastics camper’s claims for negligence and other liability against the camp will be permitted to proceed, which are connected to an alleged sexual assault committed by one of its former coaches.
In a July 20 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a split ruling towards individual motions to dismiss the case, filed by the Powdr – Woodward Camp and Brittany Shulman.
S.S. of Pickering, Ontario, Canada initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 9, 2022 versus Woodward Pennsylvania, LLC (formerly known as “Powder – Woodward PA, LLC”), Powdr – Woodward Camps, LLC and Powdr – Woodward Holdings, LLC, all of Woodward, Nathaniel Singer of Groton, Conn. and Shulman, of State College.
According to S.S., who was 17 years old in 2016 and serving in the dual role of both a camper and a junior camp counselor, Singer, then 20 years old, began to behave inappropriately with her. This behavior included unwanted physical touch and sending unsolicited, unclad photos of himself over social media app, Snapchat.
S.S. further alleged that Singer had already been sexually involved with a minor camper he had previously coached, and that the Woodward camp and Shulman were aware of those alleged events.
S.S. continued that Singer allegedly coerced her to leave her bunk in the middle of the night, meet him on the campgrounds and then sexually assaulted her. Despite the alleged assault on S.S. and an employee’s report of yet another unrelated assault on another girl, both of which Shulman were allegedly later made aware of, S.S. explained that the camp and Shulman continued to hire Singer for subsequent summer camp sessions, in 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Finally, USA Gymnastics suspended Singer from coaching gymnastics in 2020.
In her complaint, S.S. levied claims of negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring and retention, and vicarious liability, against the corporate overseers of the Woodward camp, its administrator at the time, Shulman, and her former gymnastics coach, Singer.
The defendants rejected S.S.’s sexual assault claims as untimely, under the two-year of statute of limitations in Pennsylvania, while plaintiff counsel cited Pennsylvania’s Minority Tolling Statute – a law which would greatly extend the statute of limitations on her claims.
The law’s tenets would require the clock wouldn’t start ticking on S.S.’s claims until she turned 18, and that those same claims would remain valid until she turned 30 years old, if they could be tied to childhood sexual abuse.
In order to prove childhood sexual abuse, a plaintiff must show that the claim arises from “indecent contact” which must have occurred as a result of “forcible compulsion.”
Brann found that S.S.’s claims did indeed meet those definitions, and were therefore timely.
“S.S.’s allegation that Singer kissed her and forced his way on top of her is sufficient for the Court to infer that he touched parts that an ordinary person would consider personal and private. Therefore, S.S. has plausibly alleged that Singer engaged in indecent contact. In the first amended complaint, S.S. alleges that Singer, who was stronger and larger than S.S., ‘physically pulled her towards him and began kissing her’ and then ‘forced his way on top of her,” Brann stated.
“At this early stage, an allegation that Singer’s pulled S.S. towards him sufficiently alleges the use of physical force. When added to the power dynamic inherent in S.S. and Singer’s coach-camper dynamic, the first amended complaint’s allegations adequately indicate Singer’s use of physical force when he engaged in indecent contact. Accordingly, S.S. plausibly alleges that her claims against defendants arise from childhood sexual abuse under Section 5533. Her claims are therefore timely.”
As to S.S.’s claims for negligent supervision and negligent retention/hiring, Brann found that they were redundant to the claim for general negligence and dismissed them with prejudice.
“Defendants’ first argument with respect to S.S.’s negligence claims is that Count I (negligence) is duplicative of Counts II (negligent supervision) and III (negligent hiring/retention). In support, defendants cite Giannone v. Ayne Institute, where the late Honorable Stewart R. Dalzell, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, explained that ‘Pennsylvania courts do not distinguish between general negligence and either negligent supervision or negligent child abuse,” Brann said.
“Judge Dalzell therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s negligent child abuse and negligent supervision claims because they were duplicative of the plaintiff’s general negligence claim. S.S. largely fails to respond to defendants’ citation to Giannone. The Court accepts defendants’ argument, but rather than dismissing Count I as defendants suggest, the Court will dismiss Counts II and III in line with Giannone. Negligent hiring and negligent supervision/retention are theories of liability for a negligence cause of action.”
Regarding S.S.’s claims for vicarious liability against Shulman and Singer, Brann found that such a claim would be permitted to proceed against Shulman, but not against Singer.
“The first amended complaint’s allegations regarding Singer’s conduct during training are no different from the allegations the Court considered in Chinea v. Woodward and the result is accordingly the same: Singer’s inappropriate contact during gymnastics training doesn’t fall within the scope of his employment with Woodward because – as the first amended complaint alleges – he acted inappropriately. Singer’s additional sexual encounter with S.S. presents a clearer picture. There is no doubt that cajoling a minor camper to break camp rules and engage in inappropriate physical contact is not within the scope of a camp counselor’s employment. Accordingly, Woodward isn’t vicariously liable for Singer’s conduct and Count IV will be dismissed with prejudice with respect to Singer’s conduct,” Brann stated.
“Count IV also seeks to hold Woodward liable for Shulman’s conduct. As expressed above, S.S. has plausibly alleged negligent hiring/retention and negligent supervision claims against Shulman. It’s undisputed that Shulman’s actions in hiring and supervising Singer were part of the scope of her employment with Woodward. Therefore, Count IV may proceed on that basis. For the foregoing reasons, Woodward’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:22-cv-01407
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com