## Facts

- John Doe 6 alleged that, as a minor, he was sexually abused by Gerald Sandusky on Pennsylvania State University (PSU) property.
- Sandusky was a long-time PSU assistant football coach and founder of The Second Mile, a youth charity that used PSU athletic facilities with limited oversight.
- Doe alleged Sandusky used The Second Mile to gain access to boys, including bringing them to PSU facilities and exploiting locker-room settings to commit abuse.
- Doe alleged PSU personnel and The Second Mile received reports or warning signs over years about Sandusky’s inappropriate conduct with boys but failed to take adequate protective action.
- Doe sued Sandusky, PSU, and The Second Mile for damages after Sandusky’s 2012 criminal convictions for multiple sexual offenses, including offenses involving Doe.
- PSU and The Second Mile moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), challenging vicarious liability theories and the sufficiency of the negligence pleadings.

## Issues

1. Whether PSU could be held vicariously liable under Pennsylvania respondeat superior doctrine for Sandusky’s sexual abuse.
2. Whether The Second Mile could be held vicariously liable for Sandusky’s sexual abuse under the same doctrine.
3. Whether Doe plausibly stated direct negligence claims against PSU and The Second Mile based on alleged knowledge of risk and failure to supervise, warn, or protect.

## Decision

- The court granted the motions to dismiss the respondeat superior claims against PSU and The Second Mile, holding the alleged sexual assaults were outside the scope of employment as a matter of Pennsylvania law.
- The court denied the motions to dismiss as to certain direct negligence claims, holding the complaint plausibly alleged that PSU and The Second Mile knew or should have known of the risk Sandusky posed and failed to take reasonable protective measures.
- The case proceeded on negligence-based theories but not on vicarious liability for Sandusky’s intentional sexual misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania law, respondeat superior requires that the employee’s conduct be of the kind the employee was hired to perform, occur within authorized time and space limits, and be motivated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer.
- Intentional sexual assaults are generally treated as purely personal acts and, even if facilitated by employment access or premises, fall outside the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes.
- Dismissal of respondeat superior claims does not preclude direct negligence liability; an institution may be directly liable for negligent supervision, retention, or failure to warn/protect if it knew or should have known of an employee’s dangerous propensities and failed to act reasonably.
- At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, plausibility can be shown by allegations of repeated warning signs, inadequate investigations, and continued access to children and facilities despite known risks, supporting foreseeability and breach of a duty of reasonable care.

## Conclusion

The court held that Sandusky’s alleged sexual abuse could not be imputed to PSU or The Second Mile through respondeat superior because it was outside the scope of employment, but it permitted Doe’s direct negligence claims to proceed based on allegations that the institutions had notice of prior misconduct and failed to take reasonable steps to protect children from foreseeable harm.


Doe 6 v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 982 F. Supp. 2d 437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)