State College Hazing Lawsuits: Penn State Fraternity Assault, Paddling & Wrongful Death
You are reading this because someone you love came home from a fraternity event with bruises they will not explain, or with a story they cannot finish, or because they did not come home at all. You already know something is wrong. What you may not know is that the law in Pennsylvania was rebuilt specifically for this — that a sophomore’s death in 2017 changed the criminal statute, that a university-commissioned report in 2024 proved the reforms did not work, and that five fraternities were suspended in 2025 alone for the same patterns that were supposed to have ended. We are Attorney911, and we build hazing cases. Ralph Manginello is lead counsel in an active hazing lawsuit right now — a $10M case against a university and a fraternity — and we know exactly how these organizations operate, how they hide, and how to force the evidence into the light before it disappears. The call is free. The consultation is confidential. And we do not get paid unless we win your case. Call 1-888-ATTY-911, any hour, any day.
What Happened at Penn State — and Why It Did Not Stop
In February 2017, a Penn State sophomore accepted a bid at a fraternity the university had once called “a model chapter.” That night of celebration and ritual ended in his death two days after he fell down a staircase after consuming excessive amounts of alcohol. The case hurled Penn State into the national spotlight as a high-profile example of the potentially catastrophic culture of hazing on and around college campuses — and it spurred calls for significant reforms.
Eight years later, a university-commissioned report by RISE Partnerships, an Albany consulting firm specializing in fraternity and sorority programs, found that the reforms had not meaningfully reduced risks or negative behaviors associated with fraternal organizations. Since 2017, fraternal organizations have been found responsible for 457 misconduct violations at Penn State — 168 for alcohol, 19 for hazing, and 270 for other behaviors including fighting, substance use, and sexual misconduct. In spring 2024, the number of violations reached its highest level since fall 2018, and fraternity-related reports jumped from 25 the previous fall to 120. This calendar year alone, Penn State has already seen the most reported hazing cases since 2018. Three suspended fraternities formed an independent council that lacks university oversight. At least two fraternity members face criminal charges for orchestrating a pattern of abuse. The cycle is not breaking. It is repeating.
If you or your child was hazed at a Penn State fraternity, sorority, or student organization — whether it involved forced drinking, paddling, military-style workouts, sexualized humiliation, or any act that recklessly or intentionally endangered their safety for the purpose of admission into or affiliation with a group — the law gives you a path to accountability. We walk that path with families. This page tells you everything we know about how these cases work in State College, Centre County, Pennsylvania, and what to do in the first hours and days after you learn what happened.
Your Rights Under Pennsylvania’s Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law
Pennsylvania has a specific anti-hazing statute that creates both criminal penalties and civil accountability for hazing. The Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law, enacted after the 2017 death that bears his name, established a tiered penalty system that classifies hazing resulting in serious bodily injury or death as a third-degree felony. This is not a campus conduct code. This is state criminal law.
The statute defines hazing as any action or situation that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or that willfully destroys public or private property, for the purpose of admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in, any registered student organization. That definition is broad by design — it reaches forced alcohol consumption, physical beatings, forced exercise, sexualized rituals, sleep deprivation, and any coerced act that puts a student’s safety at risk for the sake of belonging to a group.
Under Pennsylvania’s modified comparative negligence rule, a plaintiff can recover damages as long as their own negligence does not exceed 51% of the total fault. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault — but it is never automatically erased unless you cross that 51% line. That is exactly why the defense in hazing cases works so hard to pin blame on the victim, to argue “they chose to participate” and “they could have walked away.” Every percentage point they can shift onto the injured student is money off the recovery. We fight every point because every point is dollars.
Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Death and Survival Acts provide two separate paths after a hazing death. The Wrongful Death Act allows the surviving family to recover for the financial and emotional losses they suffered — lost financial support, lost companionship, funeral costs. The Survival Act allows the estate to recover for what the decedent personally endured — the conscious pain and suffering between injury and death, the medical bills, the terror of those final hours. A hazing death case opens both doors, not one, and a defense lawyer is happy to let a grieving family walk through only the first.
Who Can Be Held Liable in a Penn State Hazing Case
A hazing case is rarely one defendant. The liability stack in a Penn State fraternity hazing case typically runs through four layers, each with its own insurance, its own lawyers, and its own incentive to point at everyone else.
The National Fraternity Organization. The national chapter — Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc., Beta Theta Pi, Kappa Alpha Psi, or whichever organization’s name is on the charter — is the entity with the deepest pockets and the broadest insurance coverage. National fraternities collect dues from every chapter, set the recruitment rules, publish the anti-hazing policies, and claim to supervise the pledge process. When a chapter’s officers conduct hazing rituals during recruitment, the national organization faces vicarious liability under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior — the principle that an organization is responsible for the acts of its agents performed within the scope of their duties. The nationals will argue the local chapter acted outside the rules. We argue the rules were paper, the supervision was absent, and the pattern was decades old.
Penn State University. The university implemented reforms after 2017 — a zero-tolerance hazing policy, stricter GPA requirements, third-party monitoring protocols. The 2024 RISE Partnerships report found those reforms had not meaningfully reduced risk. When a university has documented notice that its own safety systems are failing — a conclusion written in a report it commissioned and paid for — and a student is injured in exactly the way the report warned about, the university’s duty of care becomes a live question. Penn State’s status as a “state-related” institution creates sovereign-immunity complexities that an experienced attorney must analyze carefully. The Sovereign Immunity Act may cap certain damages, but exceptions for the care of persons and real estate may be available depending on where the hazing occurred and what the university knew.
The Individual Officers and Members. The fraternity president, the dean of recruitment, the pledge educator, the active members who administered the beatings or poured the alcohol — each faces direct liability for intentional torts including assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Criminal charges, like those filed against Phi Beta Sigma’s president and dean of recruitment in May 2025, establish a public record that can be leveraged in civil proceedings. These individuals typically carry no meaningful personal insurance, but their conduct — proven through their own messages, their own statements, and the documented injuries — is what establishes the pattern that reaches the national organization and the university up the chain.
The Local Chapter and Its Housing Corporation. The local chapter often operates through a separate housing corporation or alumni advisory board that owns or leases the fraternity house. If the hazing occurred on chapter property, premises-liability theory applies alongside the organizational negligence. The property owner has a duty to keep the premises safe, and a fraternity house used for hazing rituals is not safe by any reasonable standard.
Our hazing practice page explains how we map this defendant stack in every case we take.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Disappears
The single most important thing to understand about a hazing case is this: the proof is dying right now, on a schedule set by technology and institutional policy, and nobody is going to save it for you.
Digital Communications — Immediate Risk. The pledges’ phones, the active members’ phones, the group chats on GroupMe, WhatsApp, Signal, and similar platforms — these are where the hazing orders live. “Be at the house at 6 AM for line-up.” “Wear all black.” “Don’t tell anyone.” The messages prove premeditation. They prove the hierarchy of command. They prove the pledges were given instructions, not choices. But these messages are the most fragile evidence in the case. A fraternity member who suspects a case is coming can delete an entire group chat in seconds. A Signal message can be set to auto-delete. A GroupMe can be dissolved overnight. The preservation letter we send the day you call is the only thing that freezes these records before they vanish.
University Misconduct Records — Medium Risk, Hard to Get. Penn State’s Office of Student Accountability and Conflict Response maintains records of every misconduct investigation — the 457 violations documented since 2017, the specific chapter citations, the hazing findings. These records prove the university had notice of the pattern. But they are guarded by FERPA, the federal privacy law that shields student education records. Getting them requires either a subpoena, a proper discovery request in active litigation, or the university’s voluntary cooperation — which is rarely forthcoming without legal pressure. The preservation demand must go to the university immediately, because these records are subject to internal retention schedules that can legally age out.
Security and Dashcam Footage — High Risk, Overwritten in Days. If the fraternity house has exterior cameras, if neighboring properties have surveillance, if a nearby business captured the pledges arriving or leaving — that footage is typically overwritten on a 7-to-30-day loop. No statute requires a private homeowner or a fraternity to preserve surveillance video. Once the loop completes, the recording of your child stumbling out of that house at 3 AM is gone forever, replaced by footage of the next night.
Medical Forensics — Immediate, Healing Now. The bruises from a paddle, the contusions from fists, the lacerations from forced physical exercise — these injuries are evidence, and they are healing with every hour that passes. A forensic medical examination documents the injury patterns, the location, the age, and the force required to produce them. Expert analysis of bruising patterns from paddles can prove the force used and the intent to injure — but only if the injuries are photographed and documented by a medical professional before they fade. Every day without medical documentation is a day the defense will later use to argue the injuries were minor, fabricated, or unrelated.
The Pledge Book and Internal Chapter Minutes. Many fraternities maintain a “pledge book” or internal minutes that codify the rituals, the requirements, and the traditions of the pledge process. These documents are the fraternity’s own blueprint of the hazing program — and they are often the most devastating evidence in the case. They are also the documents the chapter is most likely to destroy, hide, or “lose” once a complaint surfaces. Discovery demands must target these specifically, and we do.
The Insurance Reality: Where the Money Actually Is
A national fraternity organization carries liability insurance — typically a commercial general liability policy with layers of excess coverage above it. The coverage tower for a national fraternity can run into the millions, but the policy almost always contains exclusions for intentional acts, assault and battery, and hazing. This is the first and most important coverage fight in every hazing case: the insurer’s first move is to deny coverage by pointing to the hazing exclusion and arguing the conduct was intentional.
The counter is multi-layered. First, negligent supervision and negligent hiring claims are not intentional torts — they are negligence claims, and many policies cover negligence even when they exclude intentional acts. Second, the national organization’s own failure to supervise, train, and enforce its own anti-hazing policies is negligence, not an intentional act by the national itself. Third, some states have laws that void hazing exclusions in insurance policies, and Pennsylvania’s regulatory landscape on this point must be analyzed at the time of filing.
The individual members who committed the hazing — the president, the pledge educator, the members who wielded the paddle — almost never carry personal insurance that would cover this. Their value to the case is not as a source of recovery but as a source of proof. Their conduct, proven through their own words and actions, is what establishes the pattern that reaches the national organization and its insurance tower.
Penn State’s coverage as a state-related institution is a separate and complex question. Sovereign immunity may cap damages and limit the theories available, but exceptions exist. This is not a question to resolve on a website — it is a question that requires careful legal analysis by a trial attorney who understands Pennsylvania sovereign-immunity law and the exceptions that apply to the care of students in university-controlled environments.
What a Hazing Case Is Actually Worth
Hazing cases span a wide value range depending on the severity of the injury, the strength of the evidence, and the defendant’s ability to pay.
Low end ($250,000 and up): Cases involving non-fatal but severe physical assault — paddling that left bruising and soft-tissue injury, forced exercise that caused exhaustion and dehydration, coerced alcohol consumption that required medical attention — combined with documented psychological trauma. These cases carry economic damages for medical treatment and psychological care, non-economic damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress, and the potential for punitive damages because paddling, fighting, and forced consumption meet the “outrageous” and “reckless” standards required under Pennsylvania law.
Mid-range ($1 million to $3 million): Cases involving more serious physical injury — broken bones, internal injuries, concussions or mild traumatic brain injury from falls or blows — with longer recovery periods, documented PTSD, and clear evidence of premeditation and organizational knowledge. The punitive exposure rises sharply when the evidence shows the chapter had a documented history of the same conduct.
High end ($5 million and beyond): Cases involving permanent disability, severe traumatic brain injury, or death. The Piazza case itself set the benchmark for what a hazing death can be worth. Cases involving death trigger Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Death and Survival Acts, which allow recovery for the family’s loss of financial support and companionship, the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, medical expenses, funeral costs, and in egregious cases, punitive damages. When the national fraternity knew or should have known of the pattern and failed to act, the punitive exposure can drive the case value well above the compensatory baseline.
These figures are honest frameworks, not promises. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is built from its own evidence, its own injuries, and its own defendant structure — and the only way to know what your case is worth is to let us examine the facts.
The Medicine of Hazing: What Happens to the Body and the Mind
The physical injuries from hazing are only the visible layer. The full medical picture runs deeper, and it is the deeper picture that drives the value of the case.
Physical Trauma. Paddling produces patterned bruising — contusions that follow the shape of the instrument, often across the buttocks, thighs, or back. Forensic medical experts can analyze these patterns to determine the force used, the number of strikes, and the intent behind the blows. Repeated blows can cause deep tissue injury, muscle damage (rhabdomyolysis, where damaged muscle releases proteins that can damage the kidneys), and in severe cases, internal bleeding or organ injury. Forced physical exercise — “military-style workouts” like those alleged at Phi Beta Sigma’s Lambda Lambda chapter — can produce exertional rhabdomyolysis, dehydration, heat illness, and in extreme cases, kidney failure requiring hospitalization.
Alcohol-Related Injury. Forced or coerced consumption of excessive alcohol — the mechanism that killed Timothy Piazza — produces a cascade of harm. Acute alcohol poisoning can cause aspiration, respiratory depression, and death. Falls during intoxication produce traumatic brain injuries, skull fractures, and spinal injuries. The brain injury may not be visible on a standard CT scan — diffuse axonal injury, the microscopic tearing of nerve fibers from rotational forces during a fall, is the signature injury that standard imaging was never designed to see. A normal scan does not mean a normal brain.
Traumatic Brain Injury. A pledge who falls down a fraternity staircase after being forced to drink to excess may suffer a traumatic brain injury that does not declare itself for hours or days. The Glasgow Coma Scale — the 15-point scoring system emergency doctors use — classifies a 13 to 15 as “mild,” but more than one-third of patients who score a 13 have potentially life-threatening intracranial lesions. The word “mild” is a triage word, not a prognosis. Post-concussion syndrome — persistent headaches, dizziness, memory loss, personality changes — affects at least one in seven people with a so-called mild brain injury, and for those people, “mild” becomes a life sentence.
If your child sustained a head injury during a hazing event, our brain injury practice page explains how these invisible injuries are proven and valued.
Psychological Trauma. The psychological injuries from hazing are often the most severe and the longest-lasting. Post-traumatic stress disorder — diagnosed through an eight-part clinical checklist that includes intrusive memories, avoidance behaviors, negative alterations in cognition and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity — is a formal medical diagnosis, not a label a lawyer picks. Rape carries the highest conditional probability of producing PTSD of any traumatic event measured in the largest epidemiological study ever conducted. For hazing victims who endured sexualized humiliation — like the pledges pressured to engage in sexualized behavior at the Delta Chi and Kappa Kappa Gamma event — the psychological injury can be as severe as any physical blow. Complex PTSD, major depressive disorder, substance use disorders, and suicidal ideation are all documented consequences of severe hazing.
The defense will argue the psychological harm is “subjective” and “unverifiable.” The science says otherwise. Validated clinical instruments — the CAPS-5, the PCL-5 — produce objective, scored results that a treating clinician can testify to under oath. The injury is real, it is diagnosable, and it is compensable.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook in Hazing Cases
The playbook for defending a hazing case is predictable because the institutional incentives are predictable. Here are the plays you will see, and here is how each one is countered.
Play 1: “The Pledge Voluntarily Participated.” This is the defense’s foundation — the argument that the student chose to join, chose to go through the process, and therefore assumed the risk. The counter is the law itself: Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing statute defines hazing as conduct done “for the purpose of admission into or affiliation with” an organization. The entire legal definition of hazing presupposes that the conduct is a condition of membership. “They chose to participate” is not a defense to hazing — it is the element of the offense. Coercion, peer pressure, the power imbalance between active members and pledges, and the explicit or implicit threat that refusing means rejection — these are the mechanisms that make “voluntary” a fiction. We retain hazing experts — sociologists and researchers who study the coercive psychology of Greek life — to explain to a jury why a 19-year-old who desperately wants to belong does not have the freedom to walk away.
Play 2: The Quick Settlement Offer. Within weeks, someone will approach the family with a number — a check that sounds large to a family reeling from medical bills and a traumatized child, but that is a fraction of the case’s real value. The release attached to that check will waive every claim against every defendant, including the national organization and the university, before the full extent of the injuries is known. The counter is simple: never sign anything from the other side without your own lawyer reviewing it first. A settlement offered before the medical picture is complete, before the evidence is preserved, and before the defendant stack is mapped is a settlement designed to protect the defendants, not the injured student.
Play 3: “The University Has No Liability.” The university will argue it cannot be responsible for the conduct of a private fraternity, especially if the fraternity operated without university recognition — like the three fraternities that formed the unsanctioned State College Interfraternity Council. The counter is the RISE Partnerships report itself: a university-commissioned, university-funded document that concluded the university’s reforms had not meaningfully reduced risk. When the university’s own consultant tells it the system is failing and the university continues to operate that system, the foreseeability argument is built from the university’s own paper trail.
Play 4: The Friendly “Check-In” Call. A university conduct officer, a fraternity national representative, or an insurance adjuster may call the student or the family to “check in” and ask for “just a statement about what happened.” That conversation is not a welfare check. It is a recorded statement designed to lock the student into a narrative before the full facts are known, and it will be quoted back at deposition and trial. The counter is absolute: do not speak with university conduct officers, fraternity national representatives, or insurance adjusters without counsel present. Every statement the student gives without an attorney is a statement the defense will use to shift blame.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do and What Not to Do
If you learned within the last 72 hours that your child was hazed at a Penn State fraternity or student organization, here is what needs to happen, in order.
Hour 1: Medical First. If your child has any physical injury — bruising, pain, head trauma, signs of alcohol poisoning, psychological distress — get them to a medical professional immediately. Tell the doctor what happened. The medical record created in the first hours is the single most powerful piece of evidence in the case, because it is contemporaneous, it is made to a treating physician (not a lawyer), and it documents the injuries before they heal or the story changes. If your child sustained a head injury, insist on imaging and neuropsychological screening — a normal CT does not rule out a brain injury.
Hours 2 through 24: Do Not Speak With Anyone From the Organization. No statements to the fraternity president, the pledge educator, the active members, the alumni advisor, or the national organization. No statements to university conduct officers. No statements to the fraternity’s insurance company. No posts on social media — not about the hazing, not about the injuries, not about the fraternity. Everything the student says or posts in these first hours will become evidence. Say nothing to the other side. Say everything to your lawyer.
Hours 24 through 48: Preserve Evidence. Photograph every injury — bruising, lacerations, swelling — on a daily basis, with the date visible. Secure your child’s phone and back up all messages, group chats, photos, and videos. Identify and preserve any physical evidence — clothing worn during the hazing, the paddle if one was used, any printed materials or pledge books. Identify witnesses — other pledges, friends who saw the student after the event, anyone who was present. Memory degrades. Identify them now.
Hours 48 through 72: Call a Lawyer. The preservation letter — the document that orders the fraternity, the university, and anyone else who holds evidence to freeze it or face sanctions — is the single most important early step in the case. It goes out the day you call us. It names the specific records: the group chats, the surveillance footage, the university misconduct file, the medical records, the fraternity’s internal minutes. Once that letter is on file, any destruction of evidence becomes spoliation — and a judge can tell the jury to assume the destroyed evidence was as bad as we say it was.
Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free, it is confidential, and it costs nothing to find out whether you have a case. We work with local counsel in Pennsylvania and appear pro hac vice where required — we do not claim an office in State College, but we take hazing cases in Pennsylvania with the same intensity we bring to every case we accept.
The Proof Story: How a Hazing Case Is Actually Built
Here is how a hazing case moves from the first call to resolution.
Week One: Freeze Everything. The preservation letter goes out to the national fraternity, the local chapter, the university, and any third-party vendor (like a security company or a social platform) that holds relevant data. We identify the specific records — the GroupMe messages, the chapter minutes, the surveillance footage, the university misconduct file, the medical records — and we demand they be preserved. We open a dialogue with the State College Police Department or the Penn State University Police, depending on where the hazing occurred, to determine whether a criminal investigation is active and how it interacts with the civil case.
Weeks Two Through Eight: Build the Medical Picture. We connect your child with the right medical specialists — a trauma physician for the physical injuries, a neuropsychologist for any cognitive effects, a psychiatrist or psychologist for the psychological trauma. The treatment records are not just medical care — they are the evidence of harm that a jury will see. We work with a life-care planner to project the future cost of care — ongoing therapy, medication, possible long-term consequences — and a forensic economist to reduce those costs to present value.
Months Two Through Six: Discovery. We file suit and serve discovery demands on every defendant. The national fraternity must produce its anti-hazing policies, its training materials, its history of prior incidents at this chapter and others, its supervision records, and its insurance filings. The university must produce its misconduct records, its RISE Partnerships report, its monitoring protocols, and its correspondence about the specific chapter. The individual members must produce their phones, their messages, their social media accounts, and their testimony under oath at depositions.
Months Six Through Trial: Build the Narrative. We retain a hazing expert — a researcher who studies the coercive psychology of Greek life and can explain to a jury why “they chose to participate” is not a defense. We retain a medical expert to testify on the long-term effects of the physical and psychological abuse. We prepare the case for trial, because the willingness to try a case is what creates the leverage to settle it on terms that actually compensate the family.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a fraternity for hazing if my child was not permanently injured?
Yes. Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing law does not require permanent injury to support a civil claim. Any conduct that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of admission into or affiliation with an organization is hazing. Bruising from paddling, dehydration from forced exercise, humiliation from sexualized rituals, and the psychological trauma that follows — these are all compensable injuries. The question is not whether the injury is permanent; it is whether it was wrong, whether it was foreseeable, and whether the organization is responsible.
How long do I have to file a hazing lawsuit in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for personal injury is generally two years from the date of the injury. For wrongful death, the deadline is generally two years from the date of death. The discovery rule — a legal principle that delays the start of the clock until the injured person knew or should have known of the injury and its cause — may apply in cases where the full extent of the harm was not immediately apparent, particularly with psychological injuries or mild traumatic brain injury. But the discovery rule is not a safety net you can rely on without consulting a lawyer. Two years sounds like a long time, but the evidence dies in days and weeks, not years. The day you learn what happened is the day the clock starts working for you or against you.
Can Penn State University be held liable for fraternity hazing?
It is a complex question that depends on the specific facts, the location of the hazing, and the university’s knowledge of the pattern. Penn State is a “state-related” institution, not a state agency, which creates a unique sovereign-immunity posture — some protections may apply, but exceptions exist for the care of persons and real estate. The 2024 RISE Partnerships report — commissioned and paid for by the university — concluded the university’s reforms had not meaningfully reduced risk. That report is powerful evidence of notice: the university knew its system was failing and continued to operate it. Whether that translates to civil liability depends on the specific facts of your case and requires analysis by a trial attorney who understands Pennsylvania sovereign-immunity law.
What if the fraternity was not recognized by the university?
Three suspended fraternities at Penn State formed the State College Interfraternity Council, an independent body without university recognition or oversight. A fraternity that operates without university recognition does not escape liability — and the university’s decision to allow these organizations to continue operating in its community without oversight may itself be a negligence question. The national fraternity organization remains responsible for its chapter’s conduct regardless of whether the university recognizes it. The individual members remain liable for their actions. The lack of university recognition may actually strengthen the case against the national organization, because it demonstrates that the national failed to supervise its own chapter even after the university withdrew.
Will my child have to testify against their fraternity?
In most hazing cases, the victim’s testimony is central — but the process is designed to protect the survivor. Testimony can be given in a deposition (a sworn statement taken in a lawyer’s office, not a courtroom) and in many cases the evidence can be presented through documentary proof, medical records, and expert testimony rather than through direct confrontation. We prepare every client for what testimony will look like, we control the environment, and we never put a client on the stand without making sure they are ready. The decision to testify is the client’s, and we support it whatever the client decides. But we also build the case so that the documentary evidence — the messages, the medical records, the university’s own files — tells the story even before the client says a word.
What if my child was forced to drink alcohol and is underage — will they get in trouble?
This is one of the cruelest features of hazing culture: the same system that forces a student to consume dangerous amounts of alcohol can punish that student for consuming it. Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing law and the university’s own policies recognize that coerced consumption is hazing, not underage drinking. A student who was pressured, threatened, or physically compelled to drink as a condition of membership is a victim, not a violator. We work to ensure the civil case is framed around the coercion, not the consumption — and we coordinate with criminal counsel if there is any risk of prosecution.
What if the hazing happened off-campus?
Hazing that occurs off-campus — at a private apartment, a rented venue, a fraternity house that is technically off university property — falls under the jurisdiction of the State College Police Department or the surrounding municipality, not the University Police. This creates jurisdictional complexities that an experienced attorney must sort through. But the liability of the national fraternity, the local chapter, and the individual members does not depend on where the hazing occurred — it depends on who organized it, who participated in it, and who was responsible for preventing it. Off-campus does not mean off-limits for a civil claim.
How much does it cost to hire a hazing lawyer?
We work on contingency. That means we front every cost of the case — the filing fees, the expert witnesses, the deposition costs, the discovery expenses — and we are paid only if we win. Our fee is 33.33% of the recovery before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free, it is confidential, and there is no obligation to hire us. You can learn more about how we work on our wrongful death practice page and our contact page.
Who We Are
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is the Managing Partner of Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. He is rated “Excellent” on Avvo with a 5.0 client-review score. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Houston Bar Association. He is lead counsel in the active $10 million hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi and the University of Houston — a case that is being fought right now, in a courtroom, against the same institutional resistance every hazing case faces. Ralph was a journalist before he was a lawyer, and he approaches every case the way a reporter approaches a story: find the documents, follow the money, and tell the truth to the people who need to hear it. Read more about Ralph.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He sat across the table from the people who build the playbook we described above. Now he sits on your side. Lupe is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. Hablamos Español. Read more about Lupe.
Together, we have recovered more than $50 million for our clients. We have a 4.9-star Google rating from more than 251 reviews. Our hotline — 1-888-ATTY-911 — is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by live people, not an answering service. When you call, a real person picks up, and the conversation that follows is free and confidential.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The only way to know what your case is worth and what your rights are is to talk to us directly.
The Bottom Line
The 2024 RISE Partnerships report found that Penn State’s reforms had not meaningfully reduced the risks associated with fraternal organizations. In 2025, five fraternities were suspended. Criminal charges were filed against fraternity officers. A cycle of violence — poorly treated new members becoming hazers once they are initiated, alumni reintroducing hazing practices to restarted chapters, chapters repeating one another’s unhealthy practices — was documented in the university’s own report. The system is not fixed. It is repeating.
If your child was caught in that cycle — if they were beaten, forced to drink, subjected to sexualized humiliation, or pushed past their physical limits for the sake of a brotherhood that was supposed to protect them — the law gives you a path. The Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law was written for your family. The evidence is dying on a clock that started the day it happened. The call is free. The consultation is confidential. We do not get paid unless we win.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. We answer 24 hours a day. Hablamos Español.