Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 PLage 1 of 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ISAIAH Plaintiff I I I: a No, 302-va MW THE STATE JAMES JURY TRIAL DEMAND AND DAMION BARBER Defendants COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION AND NOW comes the plaintiff Isaiah Humphries, by and demands of the defendants, jointly and severally, damages for interest, costs and damages for prejudgment delay upon the cause the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the previous Complaint as if set forth fully hereto. 2. This COurt maintains original jurisdiction over pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1332 as a result of the controversy being between citizens of different States and the amount in con mandatory diversity amounts exclusive of interest and costs. ENDED SEEING, PA HA ?Ml through counsel, and loss sustalned, plus 3 of action set forth in i paragraphs of the the instant claims between the parties ItroverSy exceeding Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 ?age20f46 3. For the purpose of diversity pursuant to 28 1332, the plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Maryland, defendant Th\e State University is a citizen of the Commonwealth of defendanht James 1 Franklin is a citizen of the Commonwealth of and defendant Damion Barber is a citizen of the Commonwealth of 4. Venue of this matter is properly laid in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?l39l upon a basis that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property thatlis the subject} of the action is situated in this judicial district. PARTIES AND RELATED EN TITIES i i 5. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as? if set . forth herein in full. 6. Plaintiff Isaiah Humphries is an adult individual and~ at all relevantltimes material hereto was a college student attending The State Univers?ity. 7. Plaintiff may be contacted by and through Counsel, Steven F. Marino, . Esquire or Joseph Auddino, Esquire of Marino Associates at 361 Wharton Sheet, Philadelphia, PA 1 9147. Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Peige30f46 8. ,1 Defendant The State University is grant institution of higher education with campuses and i state related, land- facilities throughout having a principal of?ce located 201 Old Main, University Paik, PA 16802.. At all relevant times material hereto, defendant The University was engaged in teaching, research, and public service. a State At all relevant times material hereto, defendant The State University acted by and through its duly authorized employees, agents, workers and/or representatives acting within the scope of their employment. 9. Defendant James Franklin is an adult individual and material hereto, was the agent, servant, and employee of defendant State University, having an address for the service of process loca Center, Room 101, University Park, PA 16802. At all relevant times material hereto, defendant'James Franklin served as the Head Football Coach at The University. At all relevant times material hereto, defendant James Franklin within the course and scope of his employment with defendant The State University. 10. Defendant Damion'Barber is an adult individual and at all relevant? times .,The A ted at Bryce Jordan State acted at all relevant times material hereto was a college student attending The State University domiciled in Harrisburg, PA. At all relevant times material hereto iefendant Damion Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Palge 4 of 46 Barber Was a member of the Penn State University'varsity football team. 11. Micah Parsons is an adult individual and at all relevant times mlaterial hereto was a college student attending The Stat?e member of the Penn State University varsity football team. University and a 12. Yetur Gross-Matos is an adult individual and at. all relevant times material hereto was a college student attending The State University and a member of the Penn State University varsity football team. 13. Jesse Luketa is an adult individual and at all relevant times material hereto was a college student attending The State University Jesse Luketa and a member of the Penn State University varsity football team. THE ANTI-HAZING STATUTES . 14. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as If set forth herein in full. 15. At all relevant times, the Antihazing Law?, 24 PS. ??5351?5354, prohibited hazing throughout the Commonwealth of . 1 On October 19, 2018, The Governor of the Commonwealth of signed into law the 1 ?Timothy J. Piazza the Antihazing Law?, 2017 Pa. SB 1090, 18 3?.?2801?2811, Which became effective November 1 8, 2018, amending and superseding the prior ?Penn Law?, 24 RS. sylvania Antihazing 1 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 46 16. Pursuant to the Antihazing Law?, 24 RS. ??535 1 354, the term hazing is de?ned as any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a person or which willfully destroys or removes public or private property for the purpose of initiation or admission into or af?liation with, or as a condition for continued membership in, any organization. 17. Pursuant to the Antihazing Law? included, but was not limited to, any brutality of a physical nature beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the elements, fOr the term hazing such as whipping, ced consumption of any food, liquor, drug or other substance, or any other forced physical activity which could adversely affect the physicalhealth and safety of the individual, and shall include any activity which would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from soCial contact, forced conduct which could result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced activity which could adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the individual, or any Will?ll destruction or removal of public or private property. 18. At all relevant times the amendatory act referred to as the ?Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2801, et seq., prohibited 1 the Commonwealth of lazing throughout Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 dage6of46 19. Pursuant to the amendatory act referred to as ?fTimothy ll. Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2801, et seq., a person commits the offense o?fhazing if the person intentionally, knowingly or-recklessly, for the purpose of initiating, admitting or affiliating a minor or student into or with an organization, or for the purpose of continuing or enhancing a minor or student?s'memblership or status in an Organization, causes, coerces 0r forces a minor or student to, among others, endure brutality of a physical nature, including Whipping, beating, branhing, calisthenics or exposure to the elements; endure brutality of a mental nature, including a?ctivity . adversely affecting the mental health or dignity of the individual, sleep deprivation, exclusion from social contact or conduct that could result in extre?me embarrasSment; endure brutality of a sexual nature and endure any other activity that creates a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to the minor or student. . 1 THE STATE UNIVERSITY AN TIHAZIN POLICY 20. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as lif set forth herein in full. - 21. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times material hereto, the State University maintained a written antihazing polipy pursuant to the a . 1 Antihazing Law?, 24 RS. ??5351-5354, . Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 7 of 46 22. Upon information and belief, pursuant an antihazing policy, the University adopted rules prohibiting students or other persons associated with any organization operating under the sanction of or recognized as an organization by the University from engaging in any activity Can be described as hazing. 23. At all releVant times material hereto a copy of the; State University?s written antihazing policy, its rules, penalties and program of enforcement were published to or otherwise accessible by coaches of the State A) University athletic football program. THE STATE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT 24. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein in full. 25. At all relevant times material hereto defendant the State University maintained a Student Code of Conduct which governe student behavior. 26. The State University Student Code of Conduct identi?es and outlines unacceptable student and student organization behavior. 27. At all relevant times material hereto a copy of the State University Student Code of Conduct was published to or otherWise accessible by Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 8 of 46 defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Matos, and Jesse Luketa 28. At all relevant times material hereto a copy of the State University Student Code of Conduct was published to or otherwise accessible by coaches of the State University athletic football program. 29. The State University Student Code of Conduct provides that any student or student organization found to have committed, to have attempted to commit, or to have assisted in the prohibited behavior(s) listed in the Code, may be subject to sanction. 30. The State University Student Code of Conduct provides that a student or student organization engages in an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific violation of the Code, they perform any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that Violation. 31 . The State UniversityStudent Code of Conduct provides that student organizations may be found responsible for violations when the prohibited behavior is endorsed by the student organization or any of its of?cers ineluding, but not limited to, active or passive consent or support, having prior knowledge that the conduct was likely to occur and not taking any substantive action to prevent it. 32. The State University Student Code of Co duct provides that student organizations may be found responsible for violations when the prohibited Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Pade 9 of 46 behavior is committed during an activity paid for by the student! organization} 1 33. The State University Student Code of Conduct provides that student organizations may be found responsible for Violations when the prohibited behavior occurred on property owned, controlled, rented, leased, dr used by the student . 34. The State University Student Code of Opnduct provides that organizations or any of its members for an organizational event. i student organizations may be found responsible for violations when the purpose of the activity was related to initiation, admission into, af?liation with, br as a condition for continued membership in the student organizations. 35. The State Un1vers1ty Student Code of Conduct prov1des that 1. 1 student organizations may be found responsible for violations, if members student organizations attempted to conceal the act1v1ty of other inembers who were I 36. The State University Student Code of Conduct prbhibits students from engaging in the physical harming or threatening to harm any person, involved. lintentionally or recklessly causing harm to any person or reasonable apprehension of I such harm or creating a condition that endangers the health and safety Of self. or others. 37. The State University Student Code of Conduct prohibits students from engaging in sexual harassment. Case Doeumentl Filed 01/13/20 Page 10 of46 1 38., The State University Student Code of Conduct prohibits students from engaging in sexual misconduct. 39. The State University Student Code of Conduct prohibits students from engaging in harassment by means of physical or verbal conduct that is suf?ciently severe or pervasive such that it threatens or substantially interferesl with an individual? 3 employment, education, or access to the University programs, activities, or 1 opportunities and such conduct would detrimentally affect a reasonable person under the same circumstance. 40. The State University Student Code of Cenduct prohibits students from engaging in disorderly, disruptive, lewd, or indecent conduct, inciluding, - i but not limited to, creating unreasonable noise; pushing and shoving; creating a physically hazardous condition. 41. The State?University Student Code of Conduct [prlohibits students from engaging in retaliation by taking an adverse action against any individual on the basis 'of a good faith report made by such individual, or based on the individual?s participation in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by the University or an appropriate authority, or the individual? 5 participation in a court proceeding relating to suspected wrongful conduct. 42. The State University Student Code of Conduct prohibits lO Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 11 of 46 students from engaging in the hazing of another student. 43. The State University Student Code of Conduct 1: students from engaging in the harassment of another student. prohibits . 44'. The State University Student Code Of Conduct prohibits students from engaging in assaultive behavior towards another student. 45. The State University Student Code of Conduct prohibits students from engaging in the harmful contact of another student. THE STATE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES 46. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein in full. 47. At all relevant times material hereto defendant the State University maintained and implemented administrative policies. 48. State University?s adminiStratiVe policies were implemented, among others, to maintain an environment free of harassment and to advance the Universities commitment not to tolerate sexual misconduct and relationship violence which violates the dignity of individuals and impedes the realization of the University?s educational mission. 49. State University Administrative Policy 11 IADSS [relating to Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Pfe 12 of 46 Sexual ,And/Or' Gender-Based Harassment And Misconduct] prohibits Sexual harassment. 50. Pursuant to State University Administrative Policy AD85 [relating to Sexual And/Or Gender-Based Harassment And Misconduct the University is to provide regular, mandatory training for all University employees related to issues covered under the Policy. Pursuant to State University Administrative Policy AD85 [relating to Sexual And/Or Gender-Based Harassment And Misconduct] all University employees are required to complete an Annual Compliance Training on a yearly basis. 52. State University Administrative Policy [relating to' Discrimination and Harassment and Related Inappropriate Conduct] prohibits l. I harassment by means of behavior consisting of physical or verbal conduct [that is . - suf?ciently severe or pervasive such that it substantially interferes with an indiv1dual?s employment, education or acCess to University programs, activilies or opportunities and would detrimentally affect a reasonable person under the same circumstances, I 53. State University Administrative Policy AD67 [relating to Disclosure of Wrongful Conduct and Protection From Retaliation] prohibits retaliation by means of any adverse action taken by a member of the University faculty, staff, or 12 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 ge 13 of 46 student. body against any individual on the basis of a Good Faith Report madeby such individual, or on the basis of such individual?s participation in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry by the University or an Appropriate Authority, or participation in a court proceeding-relating to suspected Wrongful Conduct at the University; 1 54. Pursuant to State UniverSity Administrative Policy AD67 [relating to Disclosure of Wrongful Conduct and Protection From Retaliation] retaliation included behavior consistent with, but not be limited to, haralssment, discrimination, threats of physical harm, job termination, punitive, work schedule or research assignments, decrease in pay or responsibilities, or negative impact on academic progress. THE STATE UNIVERSITY FOOTBALL PROGRAM 5 5. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein in full. 56. At all relevant times material hereto defendant the State University maintained a Division I football program. 57. At all relevant times material hereto the football team maintained by defendant the State University was comprised of some one hundred (100) players which included. among others, the plaintiff, defendant Damion Barber, MiCah l3 Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Paine 14 of46 Parsons, Yetur Gross-Matos, and Jesse Luketa. coach, 58. At all relevant times material hereto the responsibility to administrate, and manage the State University Division I football team was dedicated to a coaching staff which included ?fteen (15) on more coache'is. 59. At all relevant times material hereto the State University football team coaching staff consisted, among others, of: a Heaid Coach, Offensive Coordinator/Quarterback coach; Defensive Coordinator/Linebacker coach; Special Teams Coordmator/Defensrve Ass1stant coach; Co-Defens1ve Coordinator/Safeties coach; Offensive Recruiting. Coordinator/Tight Ends coach; Game Coordinator/Offenswe L1ne coach; Passmg Game Coordinator/Wide Receivers coach; I Running Backs coach; Assistant Head Coach/Defensive Recruiting Coordinator/Comerbacks coach; Associate Head Coach/Run Game Coordinator /Defensive Line coach; Assistant AD, Chief of Staff; Director of Player Director of Football Operations; Director of Player Development Community Relations; and a PerfOrmance Enhancement coach. . 60. At all relevant times material hereto the State University football team coaching staff interacted with players on the football team on a daily basis. 14 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Paige 15 of 46' . 61. At all relevant times material hereto the State University football team coaching staff 1nteracted with players on the football team in and around the locker-room located in the LaschBuilding at Penn State University. 62. At all relevant times material hereto upon becoming aware that conduct prohibited by the Student Code of Conduct and the State University Administrative Policies had occurred the members of the State. University football team coaching staff owed a duty to immediately report the prohibited conduct to the appropriate individuals or of?ces. 63. At all releVant times material hereto upon having knewledge thatconduct . prohibited by the Student?Code of Conduct and the State University I Administrative Policies was likely Ito-occur the members of the State University football team coaching staff owed a duty to immediately take substantive action to prevent it. . PENN STATE UNIVERSITY AWARDS THE PLAINTIFF A FULL ATHLETIC FOOTBALL SCHOLARSHIP 64. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein in full. >97 65. Plaintiff Isaiah Humphries was born in the calendar year of 199 66. On or about December 20, 2017, defendant The State 15 it University aWarded the plaintiff a full athletic football scholarship, including tlie grant Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Pfe 1-6 of 46 of tuition, fees, room, board, books, and other expenses related to the attendance at State University for the academic years of 201 8-2019 through 202??2023 [see Big Ten Tender of Financial Aid Signed For Enrollment for the Academic Years I 2018?2019 through 2022-2023 attached hereto and marked Exhibit 67. Defendant James Franklin promised the plaintiffthat if the plaintiff accepted the athletic scholarship award extended by defendant The State University that defendant James Franklin would use his best effort to protect. the safety and welfare of the plaintiff. 68. Defendant James Franklin promised the plaintiff that if the plaintiff accepted the athletic scholarship award extended by defendant The State University that defendant James Franklin would use his. best effort to advance the academic and athletic careers of the plaintiff. 69. The plaintiff accepted the athletic scholarship award extend ed by defendant The State University. 70. The plaintiff enrolled and attended the State UniverSity in the academic year of 2018-2019. 16 Case DocUment 1 Filed 01/13/20 Paige 17 of'46 THE HARASSMENT AND HAZING SUFFERED BYTHE PLAINTIFF ISAIAH HUMPHRIES 71. The plaintiff inCorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set I forth herein in full. 72. Upon the plaintiff?s enrollment at State University, the plaintiff participated diligently in Penn State football team?s practice and training . . regiment as directed by the members of the Penn State football team?s coaching staff. I 73. As a result of participating in the Penn State football team?s practice and 9 training regiment, the plaintiff was caused to be in the company of other players of the Penn State football team such as defendant Damion Barber, ?Micah Parsonsi, Yetur Gross?Matos, and Jesse Luketa. 74. Defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, and Jesse Luketa Were players on the Penn State football team whom the plaintiff viewed as upper claissmen or in leadership positions. - 75. Upon-information and belief, at all relevant times material hereto, lMicah Parsons was a member of the Penn State football team?s leadership council. 76. In or about the calendar month of January 20l8, and Continuing thereafter, defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur and Jesse Luketa collectively orchestrated, participated in, directed, - an?d or facilitated a 1 7 Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Page 18 of46 campaign to harass and haze lower classmen members of the Penn State football team, including the plaintiff. 77. The campaign to harass and haze lower classmen members of the Penn State football team, such as the plaintiff, undertaken by defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Matos, and Jesse Luketa served as form of initiatipn into 1 78. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual undertaken by defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Matos, and the Penn State football program. Jesse Luketa included the participants stating that they intended to make i lower classmen, such as the plaintiff, ?their bitch because this is a prison . 79. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual undertaken by the defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur GrosS-Matps, and Jesse Luketa included the participants stating to make lower classmen, suchall relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual plaintiff, am going to fuck you?. undertaken by defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetuir Gross-Mates, and Jesse Luketa included the participants stating to lower classmen, such as the plaintiff, ?1am going to Sandusky you?. 18 Case-4:20-cv-00064-MWB Documentl Filed 01/13/204 Paige 19 of46 i At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual undertaken by defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Matbs, and Jesse Luketa included the participants stating to lower classmen, such as the plaintiff,- 82. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual ?This is Jerry undertaken by defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Matbs, and - Jesse Luketa included the participants intimidating, threatening and bullying the lower classmen, such as the plaintiff, when the lower classmen presented a resistance to the I 83. At all relevant times material hereto. the harassment and hazing ritual prohibited behavior. undertaken by defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetlir Gross-Matos, and Jesse Luketa included the participants taking the clothes of lower classmen, such as the plaintiff, and not returning them. 84. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual undertaken by the defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Mates, and Jesse Luketa included the participants overpowering lower cla'ssmen, such as the plaintiff, wrestling the lower classmen to the ground, and while maintaining a restraint of the lower classmen, simulating a humping actiOn while 01 top of the lower classmen. 19 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20, Page 20 of 46? 85. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazin undertaken by the defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Ma Jesse Luketa included the participants overpowering lower classmen, such plaintiff, wrestling the lower classmen to the ground and while maintaining a of the lower classmen another participant would place his genitals onI-the fact lower classmen. lg ritual tos, and as the estraint :ofthe' 86. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual . 1 1 undertaken by the defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Maths, and . . 1? Jesse Luketa included the participants overpowering lower classmen, wrestling the lower classmen to the ground, and While maintaining a restraint of the lower cla: ssmen, another participant would present his penis close to the face of the lower classmen and stroke his genitalia simulating the action of ejaculation. 87. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual undertaken by defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Mato s, and Jesse Luketa included the participants overpowering lower classmen, wrestling the lower classmen to the grOund, and while maintaining a restraint of the lower clas smen, another participant would place his penis on the buttocks of the lower classmen and stroke his genitalia simulating the action of ejaculation. 20 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 21 of 46 ?88. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual undertaken by defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Matos, and Jesse Luketa included the participants placing their penises between the cheeks of the buttocks of lower classmen, such as the plaintiff, while naked in the locker-room shower. 89. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual undertaken by the defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yettir Gross? Matos, and Jesse Luketa included the participants placing their penises on the body of lower classmen, such as the plaintiff, while naked 1n the locker-room shower. i . 1 90. At all relevant times material hereto the harassment and hazing ritual undertaken by the defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross- Matos, and Jesse Luketa included the participants grabbing the genitalia of lower classmen, such - 1 as the plaintiff. I 1 91 . The aforementioned prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing served to reckleSsly or intentionally endanger the mental and physical health of the 10wer 1 classmen, such as the plaintiff; 1 92. The aforementioned prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing served 1 to Violate the dignity of the lower classmen, such as the plaintiff. 21 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 22 of 46 93. At all relevant times material hereto the aforementioned harassment and hazing ritual occurred in the Lasch Building at Penn State University, a dormitory at Penn State University, and, other places in Centre County, 94. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned harassment and hazing, the plaintiff resigned his enrollment at the Penn StateUniversity in the calendar month of December 2018, and transferred his education to the University of California. REPORTING OF THE HARASSMENT AND HAZIN TO COACH JAMES FRANKLIN AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PEN SYIILVAN IA STATE UNIVERSITY FOOTBALL TEAM COACHING STAFF 95. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs! above ass-if set forth herein in full. 96. On multiple occasions, members .of the University football team coaching staff observed the harassmentand hazing which the plaintiff and other lower classmen were being subjected to in the football locker-room. 97. On multiple occasions, the plaintiff reported to members of the State University football team coaching staff that he and other lower 'classmen were being subjected to harassment and hazing in the football locker-room. 98. The plaintiffs father, Mr. Leonard Humphries, an ex?Penn State Football player and an Football player, reported to defendant coach James Franklin and other members of the State University football team 22 . Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Page-23 of46 coaching staff that the plaintiff was being subjected to harassment and hazing in the football locker?room. . i 99. Despite the harassment and hazing which was occurring in the football 10cker?room having been reported to defendant coach James Franklin and other members of the State University football team coaching staff no substantive action was taken by defendant James Franklin or other members the coaching staff to prevent it. I 100. Despite the harassment and hazing which was occurring in the football locker-room having been reported to defendant coach James Franklin andl other members of the State University football team coaching staff, defendant coach James Franklin nor any member of the State University football team coaching staff reported the prohibited conduct to the appropriate individuals or of?ces. RETALIATION OF THE PLAINTIFF AS A RESULT OF THE j? REPORTING THE HARASSMENT AND HAZIN l. 101.? The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if "set forth herein in full. 102. In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned harassment and hazing, the plaintiff?s athletic performance was overly and unfairly scrutinized by Penn State Football coaching staff. i 23 Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Page 24-of46 103. In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned harassment and hazing, the plaintiff was scorned and punished by the Penn State Football coaching staff. 104. In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned harassment and haZirig, the Penn State Football coaching staff required the plaintiff to participate in athletic; drills designed to ensure the plaintiff? - failure, and then used the plaintiff?s losing I performance in the football drills to justify an opinion that the plaintiff perforrhance was not suf?cient to award him a game playing opportunity. I 105 . In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned harassment and hazing the Penn State football team?s academic advisor subjected the to. plaintiff irrational and inappropriate censure. 106. In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned harassment and hazing, the plaintiff was denied necessary medical accommodations to manage diagnosed conditions of anxiety and narcolepsy by the Penn State Football coaching staff. 107 . In retaliatiOn of reporting the aforementioned harassment and hazing, the Penn State Football coaching staff sought to remove the plaintiff from his participation in the Penn State Football program with the excuse of a medical retirement option. 108'. In retaliation of reportmg the aforementioned harassment and hazing, the Penn State Football coaching staff provided negative reviews of the plaintiff to prospective colleges whom the plaintiff showed interest upon his decision to leave 24 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Plage 25 of 46 i . Penn State University. I 109. In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned harassment and hazing, the plaintiff was ostracized and shunned by other Penn State football team players. 1 110. In retaliationof reporting the aforementioned harassment and: hazing, the plaintiff was targeted by other Penn State fOOtball team players who cOnspired to create an existence for the plaintiff designed to encourage him to leave Penn State University and resign himself from its football program. 111. In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned hanassm?ent and hazing, the plaintiff was targeted by other Penn State football teamliplaybrs who conspired to instill anxiety, fear,fand panic in the plaintiff. - . 112. In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned hariassment and hazing, 1 Jesse Luketa continuously and repeatedly threatened the plaintif? with physical harm. l. 113. In retaliation of reporting the aforementioned harassment and hazing, . 1 Jesse Luketa threatened that if the plaintiff ever visited ?his city? in the country of Canada that he Would make certain that the plaintiff was gunned down upOn the . I . I plaintiff?s arrival in the city. . i . 1 THE STATE OFFICE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 1 114. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set 25 A Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Page 26 of 46 . forth herein in full. 1 15. Upon information and belief, or about May 22, 20 State University Office? of Sexual Misconduct Prevention and anonymous complaint reporting that harassment and hazing related prohibited had been occurring amongst players of the Penn State Football 1 19, the .esponse? received an conduct team. 116. Upon information and belief, on or about May 24, 2019, the State University Of?ce of Sexual Misconduct Prev: undertook a formal investigation in connection with the May incidents of prohibited, conduct. 117. Football program attempted to or otherwise did conceal the prohib of other members of the Penn State Football program when reque the formal investigation undertaken by the State 1 Sexual Misconduct Prevention And Response. 118. University Of?ce of Sexual Misconduct Prevention And Resp The plaintiff believes and therefore avers that memb Upon inforlnation and belief, Yvette Wilson of the :ntion And Response .22, 2019, report of ers of the Penn State sted to participate in lniversity Office of I 1 State onse completed an investigative report relating to the May 22, 2019, complaint of incidents of prohibited conduct. 119. 26. Upon information and belief, Yvette Wilson of the 1 State . - 1 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 PaFe 27 of 46 I 4 University Of?ce of Sexual Misconduct Prevention And Response submitted the i ?ndings of her investigation relating to the May 22, 2019 complaint of incidents of prohibited conduct to the State University Of?ce of Student Conduct for 120. Upon information and belief, the State University bf?ce review and processing as appropriate. of Student Conduct lodged charges against defendant Damion Barber alleging that he had subjected the plaintiff and others to harassment and hazing related prohibited . 1 1 conduct. 121. Upon information and belief, the State University Of?ce of Student Conduct prosecuted the charges lodged against defendant Damion Barber. I 122. Upon information and belief defendant Damion Barber was determined by the State University Of?ce of Student Conduct to have committed prohibited behavior in violatiOn of the State University Student Code of Conduct and sanctioned. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE PER VIOLATION OF AN TIHAZIN STATUTES (Plaintiff The State University) 123. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein 1n full. 27 Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Pag e28 of46 1 124. At all relevant times material hereto the plaintiff was a person within the within the meaning of the Antihazing Law?, 24 P. 125. At all relevant times material hereto the plaintiff was s. ??5351et seq. a Student within the meaning of the ?Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2801, et seq. 126. Atall relevant times material hereto defendant The State University was an institution of higher education or institution within the meaning of the Antihazing Law?, 24 PS. ??5351 et/. seq. 127. At all relevant times material hereto defendant The University was an institution of higher education orinstitution wit the ?Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2801, et 128. At all relevant times material hereto the was an organization operating under the sanction of "or recognized by defendant The State University. 129. At all relevant times material hereto the State hin the meaning of seq. nia Football Team as an organization nia Football Team was an organization'within the meaning of the Antihazing Law??, 24 RS. ??5351 et seq.- r? 130. At all relevant times material hereto the was an organization within the meaning of the ?Timothy J. Piazza 18 2801, et seq. '28 State football team Antihazing Law?, Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Pagie'29 of46 i 131. - At all relevant times material hereto a spe01al r? existed 1 between defendant The State University and the pla college athletic coach and a student-athlete. intiffin the form ofa 132. Defendant The State University owed the plaintiff an assumed, contractual, statutory arid/or common law heightened d1 ity of care to: exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of student- athletes under its authority; conduct suf?cient supervision of athletes; (0) provide a safe sport environment; prevent prohibited conduct of harassment an athletes and coaching staff; prevent prohibited conduct of retaliation by coaching staff; (0 report to the proper authorities incidents of harassment and hazing by other athletes and coaching staff; report to the prOper authorities incidents of retaliation; 29 promote the health and welfare of the plaintiff hazing by other other athletes and i )hibited conduct of 4 )hibited conduct of student athlete. Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Paige 30 of46 i 133. Defendant The State University, by and through its employees agents, workers and/or representatives acted negligently, carelessly, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly and breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff 1n the following respects: 1 permitting the plaintiff to be subject to the prohibited conduct of harassment and 11212ng from members of the Penn State football team; 3 permitting the plaintiff to be subject to the prohibited conduct of 1 harassment and hazing from members of the Penn State football team in a blatant disregard of the State University? 3 written antihazingpolicy implemented pursuant to the Antihazing Law?, 24 PS. ??5351e5354; failing to take substantive action to protect the plaintiff 9 from suffering the prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing; promoting or facilitating hazing in violation of the Antihazing Law?, 24 PS. ??5351 et seq.; promoting or facilitating hazing in violation of the ?Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2804 [relating to Organizational Hazing]; (9 Promoting or facilitating hazing in violation of the ?Timothy J. 9, Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2805 [relating to Institutional Hazing]i 3O Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 1 P11ge 31 of 46 1 1 1 retaliated against the plaintiff upon learning that the plaintiff . 1 1 reported that he was being subjected to the prohibited condu1ct of harassment and 1 hazing from members of the Penn State football team. failing to effectively enforce the State University 1 failing to effectively enforce the State University Administrative Policy AD85 [relating to Sexual And/Or Gende1r-Based Harassment 1 1 Student Code of Conduct for violations of prohibited conduct; 1 1 And Misconduct]; failing to effectively enforce the State University Administrative Policy AD91 [relating to Discrimination and Harassment and Related 1 1 . Inappropriate Conduct]; failing to effectively enforce the State University 1 Administrative Policy State University Administrative Policy AD67 1 [relating to Disclosure of Wrongful Conduct and Protection From Retaliation]:1 failing to report the incidents of proh1b1ted cor1duct to appropriate 1 1 authorities. 1 1 134. Defendant The State University 1s liab11e to the plaintiff, by and through its representative, employees, agents or ostensible age11ts, pursuant t10 the - /1 1 1 provisions Section 219 of the Restatement 2nd of Agency. 1 1 31' 1 1 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Ppge 32 of 46 1 . i 135. As a direct and proximate result of defendant the State 1 University?s negligent, intentional, or recklessly acts, omissions or failures to act, the . plaintiff was caused to transfer his college enrollment from The State University to the University of California and rendered ineligible?to participate as game player on the University of California football team for a period Of one (1) year? ?1 pursuant to the governing rule of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. 136. As a direct and proximate result of defendant The State 1 University?s negligent, intentional, or recklessly acts, omissions Ior failures to act, the plaintiff was caUSed to suffer physical pain, discomfort, trauma, humiliation, 1 3! embarrassment, emotionaldistress, sleeplessness, anxiety, inability to perform simple activities of daily living, depression characterized by feelings of despair, hopelessness, and despondency, some or all of which may be permanent and which may continue i inde?nitely into the future. 137. As a direct and proximate result of defendant The State 1.. I I a Umvers?y?s negllgent, intentional, or recklessly acts, om1ssrons or fallures to act, the plaintiff has been required to undergo outpatient healthcare, and medical evaluations and may require other medical attention into the future. 138. As a direct and proximate result of defeniiant The State 1 1 University?s negligent, intentional, or recklessly acts, omissions or~failures to act, the 32 ,Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Pbge 33 of 46 1 plaintiff incurred medical expenses for diagnosis, treatment and care in an bffort to cure himself of the injury resulting from the prohibited and may incur additional medical expenses continuing on into the future. 139. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Tlie? State a . I University?s negligent, intentional, or recklessly acts, omissionsl or fallures to lact, the plaintiff has been caused to expend" various and diverse sums of pioney in an effort to cure himself of the 1njury resulting from the prohibited misconduct and may incur 1 additional medical expenses continuing on into the future. 140. As a direct and proximate result of defendant The State I University?s negligent, careless and or reckless actions plaintiff Mas caused to suffer a 1 loss of life's pleasures wh1ch may continue inde?nitely into the fpture. I 141. The aforementioned actions or omission to actl of defendant The State University were reckless and exercised with a deliberate indifference to the welfare of the plaintiff. i 1 - WHEREF ORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment in his lfavor and against defendant The State University, jointly and severeilly, and the relief which follows: . 1 I. I That plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages as proven at trial; I 11. That plaintiff be awarded exemplary damages as provlen at trial; 33- i 1 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Pagf 34 of 46 i 1 That plaintiff be awarded interest and damages for prejudgment delay; IV. That plaintiff be awarded further relief as this COurt may deem . 1 appropriate. . COUNT II NEGLIGENCE PER VIOLATION OF AN TIHAZIN STATUTES LPlaintiff James Franklin) 142. The plaintiff 1ncorporates by reference the paragraphs aboVe as 11f set forth herein 1n fu11. 143. At all relevant times material hereto defendant James Frzinklin maintained the position as the Head Coach of the Penn State University Football team. 1 144. At all relevant times material hereto defendant James Franklin was a . 1 1 person associated with the Penn State Football team, an organization operating under the sanction of or recognized as an organization by the institution from engaging in any activity which can be described as hazing, within the meaning of the Antihazing Law?, 24 RS. ??5351 et seq. 1 145. At all relevant times material hereto defendant James Franklin was a person within the meaning of the ?Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 Pa C. ..A 2801, et seq. 34 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Pagb 35 of 46 146. At all relevant times material hereto a special relationship eiristed between defendant James Franklin and the plaintiff in the form of a college athletic coach and a student-athlete. 147. Defendant James Franklin owed the plaintiff an assumed, contractual, statutory, and/or common law heightened duty of care to: exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of student- athletes under his authority; conduct suf?cient supervision of athletes; provide a safe sport environment; 1d) prevent prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing by other athletes and coaching staff; I other athletes and prevent prohibited conduct of retaliation by coaching staff; I report to the proper authorities incidents of prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing by other athletes and coaching staff; report to the proper authorities incidents of prohibited conduct of . . retaliatlon; . promote the health and welfare of the plaintiff student athlete. 35 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 36 of 46 148. Defendant James Franklin acted negligently, carelessly, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly and breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff in the following respects: permitting the plaintiff to be subject to the prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing from members of the Penn State football team; permitting the plaintiff to be subject to the prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing from members of the Penn State football team in a blatant disregard of the State University?s written antihazing pursuant to the Antihazing Law?,24 P.S. ??5351 failing to take substantive aetion to protect suffering the prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing; policy implemented -5 354 the plaintiff from promoting or facilitating hazing in Violation of the Antihazing Law?, 24 PS. ??5351 et seq.; promoting or facilitating hazing in violation of the ?Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2804 [relating to Organizational Hazing]; promoting or facilitating hazing in violation of the ?Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2805 [relating to Institutional Hazing]; 36v Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 37 of 46 retaliated against the plaintiff upon learning that the plaintiff - 1 reported that he was being subjected to the prohibited conduct hazing from members of the Penn State football team; Of harassmeht and failing to report the incidents of prohibited conduct to appropriate authorities. 149. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant James Franklin?s negligent, intentional, or recklessly acts, omissions or failures to act, the plaintiff was caused to suffer that damage and loss aforementioned. WHEREF ORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment in his defendant James Franklin, jointly and severally, and the relief wh I. That plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages as? 11. That plaintiff be awarded exemplary damages as pro favor and against rich follows: proven at trial; ven at trial; . 111. That plaintiff be awarded interest and damages fOr A IV. That plaintiff be awarded further relief as this appropriate. COUNT NEGLIGENCE PER VIOLATION OF AN TIHAZING STATUTES (Plaintiff Damion Barber} rejudgment delay; Court may deem 150. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as lif set forth herein in full. 37 . . Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Page 38 of46l 151. At all relevant times material hereto defendant Damion Barber was a person associated with the Penn State Football team, an organization operating under the sanct10n of or recognized as an organization by the institution from engaging 1n any activity thich can be described as hazing, within the meaning: of ?the Antihazing Law?, 24 RS. ??5351 et seq. I, . 1 152. At all relevant times material hereto defendant ?amion Barber was a person within the meaning of the ?Timothy . Piazza Antihafzingl?Law?, 18 2801, et seq. i 153. Defendant Damion Barber owed the plaintiff an assumed, contractual, c0mmon law, and/or statutory duty of care to restrain himself from subjecting the . plaintiff to the prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing. 154. Defendant Damion Barber acted negligently, carelessly, intentionally, 1. a . knowingly, or recklessly and breached the duty of care owed td the plaintiff lin the following respects: subjected the plaintiff to the prohibited conduct of harassment and hazing; - violated the State University?s. Student Code of Conduct; I a 38' Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 39 of 46 . violated the State University?s lwritten antihazing policy implemented pursuant to the Antihazing Law?, 24 PS. ??535 l- 5354 by promoting or facilitating hazing; promoting or facilitating hazing in violation of the promoting or facilitating hazing in Violation of the ?Timothy J. I .1 Piazza Antihazing Law?, 18 2804 [relating to Organizational Hazing]; retaliated against the plaintiff upon learning that the plaintiff Antihazing Law?, 24 RS. ??535 1 et seq.; reported that he Was being subjected to the prohibited conduct? of harassment and hazing by members of the Penn State football team. I 155. As a direct. and prOxi'mate result of the defendanlt Damion Barber?s aforementioned negligent, intentional, or recklessly acts, omissions or failures to act, the plaintiff was caused to suffer that damage and loss aforementioned. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment in his? favor and against defendant Damion Barber, jointly and severally, and the. relief which follows: I. That plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages as proven at trial; 11. That plaintiff be awarded exemplary damages as proven at trial; 39 i That plaintiff be awarded interest and damages for prejudgment delay; I Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Pa IV. That plaintiff be awarded further relief as thi appropriate. COUNT ASSAULT AND BATTERY (Blaintiff Damion Barber ge 40 of 46 Court may deem 156. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein in full. 157. "Defendant Damion Barber subjected the plaintiff to unwanted harmful physical contact. 158; Defendant Damion Barber by- means of physical menace placed the . plaintiff in fear of imminent bodily harm. 159. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant Damion Barber?s negligent, intentional, or recklessly acts the plaintiff was caused to suffer that damage and loss aforementioned. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment in his favor and against defendant Damion Barber, jointly and severally, and the relief which folloWsi. I. That plaintiff be awarded compensatory? damages as proven at trial; II. That plaintiff be awarded exemplary damages as proven at trial; That plaintiff be awarded interest and damages for 1 4O )rejudgment delaY; Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 Page 41 of46 i IV. That plaintiff be awarded further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. . COUNT VI NEGLIGENT IN FLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (?aintiff All Defendants) 160. The plaintiff incorporates by?reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein in full. 161. At all relevant times material hereto defendants The State University, James Franklin, and Damion Barber owed plaintiff a common law duty not to act in a manner which they should have realized would involve an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress, illness, and/or bodily harm. 162. The defendants knew or reasonably should have known that subjecting . the plaintiff to the aforementioned prohibited conduct of - harassment, hazing and retaliation invOlved an unreasonable risk that emotional distress would result: 163. Defendant The State University is liable to the plaintiff, by and through its representative, employees, agents or oStensible agents, pursuantto the provisions Section 219 of the Restatement 2nd of Agency. 1 I 164. The conduct of the defendants violated the provisions of the Section 313 ?of the Restatement 2??d of Torts. 165. As a result of the defendants having subjected the plaintiff to the 41 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Paige 42 of 46 aforementioned prohibited conduct harassment, hazing and retaliation, the plaintiff was caused to suffer fear, anxiety, panic and emotional trauma. 166. The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of the defendants has caused the plaintiff to experience illness and bodily harm. 167. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants or their authorized agents, ostensible agents, servants, workman and/or employees? reckless and . indifferent actions, omissions, or failures to act as set forth herein, plaintiff was caused to suffer emotional distress, grief, and fright to a degree that no reasonableperson should be expected- to endure. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendants,:j ointly and severally, and the relief which follows: I. That plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages as proven' at trial; II. That plaintiff be aWarded interest and damages for prejudgment delay; That plaintiff be awarded ?further relief as this Court may: deem appropriate. 3 COUNT VII IN TENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Qlaintiff Damion Barber) 168. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein in full. i 42 Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 43 of 46 169. 1 Defendant Damion Barber? 5 aforementioned behavior in subjecting the plaintiff to the prohibited conduct of harassment, hazing and retaliation was extreme and outrageous conduct. 170. Defendant )Damion Barber? 5 aforementioned behavior in subjecting the plaintiff to the prohibited conduct of harassment, hazing and retaliation was intentional I or reckless. 171 . Defendant Damion Barber?s knew or reasonably should have known that I subjecting the plaintiff to the aforementioned prohibited conduct of harassment hazing and retaliation involved an unreasonable risk that emotional disiress would result. 172. Defendant Damion Barber?s aforementioned behavior in subjecting the . plaintiff to the prohibited conduct of harassment,-hazing andretaliation caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. I 173. The conduct of defendant Damion Barber violated the provisions of the Section 436 of the Restatement 2nd of Torts. 174. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Damion Barber?s intentional and wrongful actions plaintiff was caused to, suffer emotional distress, grief, humiliation, anger and chagrin to a degree that no reasonable person should be expected to endure. 175. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Damion Barber?s 43 Case Documentl Filed 01/13/20 P%g e44 of 46 intentional and wrongful actions plaintiff was caused to suffer physical injury.? 17 6. Defendant Damion Barber?s actions were outrageous, malicious, willful, effected with a recklessly indifference to the welfare of the plalintiff. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant bamion Barber, jointly and severally, and the relief which follows: I. That plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages a proven at trial; II. That plaintiff be awarded exemplary damages as proven at? trial; 111. That plaintiff be awarded interest and damages for prejudgment delay; IV. That plaintiff be awarded further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. COUNT CIVIL CONSPIRACY (Plaintiff Damion Barber) 177. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragr forth herein in fun; aphs above as if set I 178. At all relevant times material hereto, defendant Damion Barber owed a duty to the plaintiff not to conspire with others for the purpo plaintiff to hazing, harassment, assault, battery and retaliation. se of subjecting the 179. Defendant Damion Barber engaged in a civil conspiracy with Micah Parsons, Yetur Gross-Matos, and Jesse Luketa to haze, harass 44 assault, batter and Case Document 1 Filed 01/13/20 Page 45 of 46 retaliate against the plaintiff. 180. With a common purpose to haze, harass, assault and batter and retaliate against the plaintiff, defendant Damion Barber, Micah Parsons, Yetur GrosseMatos, and Jesse Luketa engaged in the aforementioned overt acts. 18.1. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy engaged; by the defendant Damion Barber, the plaintiff was caused to suffer the aforementioned harms and loss. 182. Defendant Damion Barber?s actions were outrageo,us, malicious, willful, effected with a recklessly indifference to the welfare of the plaintiff. .183' WHEREF ORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment eigainst the defendant Damion Barber, jointly and severally, and the relief which folloivs: I. That plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages asproven at trial; 11. i That plaintiff be awarded exemplary damages as proven at trial; I That plaintiff be awarded interest and damages for prejudgment delay; I That plaintiff be awarded further relief as this Court may? deem appropriate. I JURY TRIAL DEMAND 184. The plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if set forth herein in full. 45 7 Case420c00064MWB Documentl P610646 IS demanded 1n the above cause