Centre County, Pennsylvania Hazing Lawsuit: James Franklin and Penn State Football Program Liability
If you are reading this because you or your child was subjected to the “traditions” of a high-profile athletic program, you know that the pride of the jersey can quickly become a shroud for abuse. In Centre County, Pennsylvania, the shadow of the past remains long, yet the allegations surfacing from the Lasch Football Building suggest that a culture of silence and sexualized intimidation did not end years ago—it simply changed forms.
When a student-athlete reports physical restraint, the simulation of sexual acts, and threats explicitly designed to invoke the most painful chapter in a university’s history, they are no longer dealing with “team building.” They are dealing with a criminal environment. We have seen how institutions like Penn State respond when their billion-dollar football engine is threatened: they often turn the machinery of the university against the whistleblower. If you have been targeted for speaking up, you are facing a corporate defense strategy designed to protect a brand at the cost of your future. Our firm moves to stop that cycle.
The Allegations: When Hazing Becomes Sexual Assault
The federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania details a campaign of harassment that moves far beyond the legal definition of hazing into the territory of physical assault and battery. The allegations include lowerclassmen being overpowered, wrestled to the ground, and subjected to genitals being placed on their faces and bodies in locker rooms and showers.
Perhaps most chilling is the alleged use of the phrase, “I am going to Sandusky you.” In State College, these words are not just an insult; they are a tool of psychological terror used to remind victims that the institution has a history of looking the other way.
“Pennsylvania’s Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law (18 Pa. C.S. § 2801 et seq.) provides a rigorous framework for defining and penalizing hazing… providing for the forfeiture of property and the ability to hold institutions accountable for allowing a culture of abuse.”
When a coaching staff allegedly observes this behavior and takes no substantive action, the university’s liability becomes absolute. Under the law, a coach like James Franklin has a non-delegable duty to provide a safe educational environment. If he or his staff watched these incidents or were informed of them and chose the “path of least resistance,” they didn’t just fail as mentors—they violated the law.
The Retaliation: Sabotaging an Athlete’s Future
The most dangerous part of this case is not the locker room—it is the coaching office. The plaintiff alleges that after reporting the abuse, the staff began a campaign of retaliation. This is a classic play in elite athletics:
* Performance Sabotage: Creating drills designed to ensure an athlete fails so that “poor performance” can be used as a pretext for benching them.
* Transfer Interference: Providing negative reviews to prospective colleges to prevent an athlete from continuing their career elsewhere.
* The “Medical Retirement” Trap: Pressuring a healthy athlete to take a medical retirement to clear a scholarship spot and silence a whistleblower.
If you have experienced this, you need to understand that this conduct is a direct violation of personal-injury-claims protections and Title IX. Retaliation is often easier to prove than the initial abuse because it leaves a paper trail of emails, academic censures, and rigged performance data.
Medical Neglect as a Tool of Coercion
A unique and devastating element of this case is the alleged denial of medical accommodations. The plaintiff has diagnosed conditions of anxiety and narcolepsy. In high-stakes sports, these are not “weaknesses”; they are medical conditions that require accommodation under federal law.
Allegations that the coaching staff intentionally denied these accommodations to force an athlete out of the program show a level of reckless indifference that exceeds the bounds of decency. When a university advisor or coach uses a student’s medical diagnosis as a weapon to facilitate their removal, they move from negligence into intentional infliction of emotional distress. We examine these medical records to show the sudden shift in “performance” happened only after the report was made, proving the “failure” was manufactured by the staff.
Pennsylvania Law and the “State-Related” Defense
Penn State occupies a unique legal position as a “state-related institution.” While they often attempt to use sovereign immunity protections to shield themselves from lawsuits, these protections have significant cracks, especially in cases involving intentional torts, sexual misconduct, and wrongful-death-university-negligence.
Under the Timothy J. Piazza Antihazing Law, the definition of hazing is broad, and the penalties for institutions that allow it are severe. Furthermore, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex-based discrimination and sexual violence in any program receiving federal funding. A university that fails to respond to reports of sexualized hazing is in direct violation of federal law, and no amount of “integrated athletics” independence can shield them from a federal judge.
The Evidence Clock: Proving What Happened Behind Closed Doors
In a workplace-accident-lawyer or campus abuse case, the evidence is on a timer. The university and the athletic department hold the keys to the truth, and they are already in litigation mode.
- Internal Reports: The Office of Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response and the Office of Student Conduct have records of these investigations. These documents often contain original witness statements that contradict the “unsubstantiated” public claims.
- Locker Room Logs: Digital facility access logs prove who was in the building during the alleged assaults. These logs are often overwritten every 30 to 90 days.
- Coaching Communications: The most critical evidence usually lives on the mobile devices of assistant coaches and academic advisors. Emails and texts discussing an athlete’s “medical retirement” or “scrutinized performance” are the smoking guns of retaliation.
- Medical and Academic Files: Sudden changes in your academic standing or the denial of medical care for conditions like narcolepsy must be subpoenaed before they are thinned or “lost” during routine file maintenance.
The Insurance Playbook: How the University Fights Back
When you take on a program with the resources of Penn State, you are not just fighting a coach—you are fighting a massive insurance-defense machine. Lupe Peña, our associate attorney, spent years inside national defense firms and knows the plays they run to devalue your life:
- The “Locker Room Culture” Defense: They will argue that these acts were “horseplay” or “teasing” that the athlete misconstrued. We counter this by showing the sexualized nature of the assaults, which no civilized society accepts as “play.”
- The Performance Smear: They will pull every missed tackle or bad practice rep to argue that you were benched because you weren’t good enough, not because you reported abuse. We use forensic economists to project the value of your lost professional trajectory.
- The “Unsubstantiated” Finding: They will point to their own internal investigation as proof that nothing happened. We show that internal investigations are often designed to reach a specific result to protect the university’s federal funding.
Your First 72 Hours: A Roadmap for Survivors
If you are currently being hazed or are facing retaliation in an athletic program, what you do in the next three days will decide the strength of your case.
- Seek Independent Medical Care: Do not rely on team doctors or university-affiliated clinics. Go to a private physician to document any physical injuries or the exacerbation of conditions like anxiety.
- Secure Your Digital Life: Take screenshots of every text, DM, or email from coaches and teammates. Save any “performance reviews” or academic warnings you receive.
- Silence is Power: Do not speak to “investigators” from the Office of Student Conduct or any university representative without counsel. They are not there to help you; they are there to gather information for the university’s defense.
- Call 1-888-ATTY-911: You need an immediate evidence-preservation demand sent to the university to freeze the logs and records that prove your case.
Why Attorney911 Takes Pennsylvania Cases
We are a trial firm that takes catastrophic-injury and institutional-negligence cases in Pennsylvania. Our managing partner, Ralph P. Manginello, is a competitor who spent 27 years in courtrooms and was a point guard and Hall of Fame athlete himself. He knows that real toughness isn’t found in a locker room assault—it’s found in standing up to a bully. Lupe Peña knows the insurance-defense world from the inside and uses that knowledge to find the reserve-setting and delay tactics the university uses to wear families down.
We work on a contingency fee—33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. We don’t get paid unless we win your case. Your consultation is free, confidential, and available 24/7. Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a coach be held personally liable for hazing?
Yes. Under Pennsylvania’s negligent supervision laws and the Piazza Law, coaches can be held liable if they knew or should have known about the hazing and failed to stop it. If a coach actively participated in or encouraged retaliation against a whistleblower, their personal liability increases significantly.
What if the university investigation found no wrongdoing?
A university’s internal investigation is not a court of law. Often, these investigations are handled by staff whose primary interest is protecting the institution’s reputation. We conduct our own discovery, subpoenaing the very records the university may have ignored, to prove what really happened.
How much is a college hazing lawsuit worth?
Case values in this category typically range from $500,000 to over $5,000,000. The total depends on the severity of the assault, the proof of retaliation, and the economic impact on the athlete’s future career. If we can prove that the university’s malice destroyed a professional 18-wheeler-accidents or NFL earning capacity, the value can be much higher.
Can I sue if the hazing happened years ago?
Pennsylvania generally has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury, but for victims of sexual misconduct or those who were minors at the time, there are often exceptions that extend this window. You should move through a consultation with us to check the specific clock on your claim.
What is the difference between hazing and sexual assault?
Hazing is a category of forced initiation. When that initiation involves physical restraint, simulation of sex acts, or Genital contact, it is also sexual assault. You do not have to choose one or the other; we plead both to maximize the accountability of the perpetrators.
Can I sue for retaliation if I transferred to another school?
Absolutely. In fact, transferring to escape a hostile environment is often strong evidence of the harm you suffered. If Penn State staff provided negative reviews to your new school or interfered with your scholarship opportunities, that is actionable retaliation.
What if I was partially at fault or didn’t fight back?
Pennsylvania follows a modified comparative negligence rule, but this rarely applies to intentional assault or hazing. Fear and “coerced silence” are part of the abuse mechanism. Not fighting back against a group of upperclassmen who outnumber and outweight you is a survival instinct, not consent.
What records should I save right now?
Save all communications regarding your medical conditions (narcolepsy/anxiety), any “failed” performance reviews, and any messages from teammates regarding “traditions” or locker room events. These are the building blocks of your brain-injuries or emotional distress claim.
Does Title IX protect male athletes?
Yes. Title IX protects all students from sex-based harassment and a hostile educational environment, regardless of gender. Sexualized hazing in a male locker room is a textbook Title IX violation.
How do I start a lawsuit against a major university?
The first step is a formal evidence-preservation demand. We move to freeze the university’s data before they can “standardize” their records. Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 to begin this process immediately.