Hazing Abuse Lawsuits

In this post, we will explain how colleges, universities, fraternities, and other schools can be held liable when students are injured or sexually abused in connection with hazing activities. Victims of college hazing that went too far can sue the university and/or fraternity for negligence and get financial compensation. This post will explain the basics of college hazing lawsuits and look at the settlement amounts and jury payouts in a college hazing injury case.

---

HAZING ABUSE LAWSUIT UPDATES

Before we get into the heart of what these cases are about, let’s look at some recent news on recent hazing litigation and law.

August 18, 2024 – New Connecticut Football Hazing Lawsuit

A new case in Connecticut, Doe v. Stirk et al., Docket No. NNH-CV-25-6159257-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 15, 2025) centers on the systemic failure of the North Haven Public School system and town officials to prevent and address a pattern of violent hazing within the high school’s varsity football program. The complaint outlines allegations that John Doe, then a sophomore, was subjected to a longstanding and ritualized form of hazing involving beatings with a plastic implement known as the “spank stick.” This ritual was not only tolerated but also allegedly occurred in the presence of coaching staff.

The crux of the lawsuit is that the school district, from the superintendent down to the assistant principal and athletic director, failed to intervene despite having both statutory obligations under Connecticut’s anti-bullying statute and internal school policies that required active supervision and intervention. The allegations detail that after enduring this hazing and being awarded the “spank stick,” Doe later used it, at the urging of teammates, in an incident that led to a disciplinary investigation. Doe was the only student disciplined and, according to the complaint, was used as a scapegoat to conceal a culture of normalized abuse stretching back years.

The complaint names multiple counts of negligence, asserting that school officials failed to properly supervise, report, and investigate both the December 2022 hazing incident and the follow-up incident in September 2023. It also accuses school administrators of misleading the public and media about the scope of the abuse, mischaracterizing it as an isolated event when internal communications revealed otherwise.

Importantly for other practitioners in similar institutional liability cases, the pleadings lean heavily on violations of Connecticut General Statute § 10-222d, which mandates school policies on bullying and student safety plans. This statute is used not only to frame a statutory duty but also to bolster claims of negligent oversight, failure to report, and psychological harm caused by the officials’ inaction.

Strategically, this lawsuit is significant because it seeks to challenge a pattern of generational abuse within a public school athletic program and holds not just individual actors but the broader governance structure accountable (which is what you almost always need to get compensation in these cases.

August 15, 2025 – National Hazing Database Launches

A new Campus Hazing Database went live this week, compiling detailed policies, reporting protocols, and incident records from over 1,500 colleges across the United States. This centralized platform allows students and families to compare hazing histories and prevention efforts, offering a level of transparency that many advocacy groups have long demanded. The database is designed to complement new federal reporting mandates and will be updated regularly as more institutions report data under the Stop Campus Hazing Act.

June 8, 2025 –  Central Catholic High School Under Investigation

A new hazing scandal has emerged at Central Catholic High School in San Antonio. A 15-year-old varsity soccer player reported being assaulted and confined by teammates as part of a longstanding initiation ritual. Photos and affidavits from at least ten witnesses have surfaced, and the school has expelled two students while placing three more on disciplinary watch. The school has hired an outside law firm to investigate, and a civil lawsuit is expected.

 

---

Hazing Abuse Lawsuit Claims

Hazing lawsuits often involve multiple legal allegations against the defendants, including individual members of organizations, the organizations themselves, and sometimes the educational institutions. The decision as to who to sue in a university hazing lawsuit often hinges on which defendant has the insurance or resources to contribute to a settlement amount or jury payout.

The legal allegations you see in a college hazing lawsuit are grounded in the harmful actions that constitute hazing, which can lead to physical, emotional, and psychological damages.

Here’s an overview of the common legal allegations made in hazing lawsuits, using information from the mentioned complaint as well as general knowledge:

Negligence: This claim is based on the failure of the defendants to exercise a standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would in a similar situation. Hazing cases often involve the failure to prevent harm to pledges or members, including physical injuries and emotional distress. The complaint alleges that the defendants knew or should have known their actions were dangerous and could cause harm.  When hazing lawsuits include negligence claims against national fraternities or sororities and colleges or universities, these claims typically focus on the alleged failure of these organizations and institutions to prevent hazing practices, properly supervise their chapters or students, and enforce anti-hazing policies effectively. These legal actions often contend that the national organizations and educational institutions had a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of their members or students but failed to meet this obligation. Here’s how negligence claims usually target these entities:

Gross Negligence: This goes beyond simple negligence and implies a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and the consequences to another party. In the context of hazing, it might involve forcing individuals to consume dangerous amounts of alcohol or subjecting them to severe physical abuse, knowing such actions could result in significant harm.  What is the practical difference between negligence and gross negligence?  In many jurisdictions, the distinction is whether punitive damages are available.  Punitive damages not only drive jury payouts but the pressure of punitive damages leads to larger settlements in college hazing lawsuits.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED): This claim is based on causing emotional distress through negligent actions. Unlike intentional infliction of emotional distress, NIED does not require the action to be intentional. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants’ actions caused severe emotional and psychological harm to the victims.

Outrage (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress): This claim involves actions that are so extreme and outrageous that they go beyond all possible bounds of decency. The conduct must be intended to cause severe emotional distress or done with reckless disregard of the likelihood of causing such distress.  It is a high bar yet that bar is often cleared in university hazing abuse lawsuits. This involves the kind of demeaning, dangerous, or humiliating activities forced upon pledges.

Breach of Duty of Care: This legal allegation is related to the obligation of organizations, including fraternities and educational institutions, to protect members or students from foreseeable harm, including hazing practices. It argues that the defendants breached their duty by allowing a culture of hazing to persist.

Wrongful Death (in cases where hazing results in death): While not applicable in every hazing lawsuit, wrongful death claims may be pursued if hazing activities lead to a fatality. This would allege that the negligent or intentional actions of the defendants directly caused the victim’s death.

Punitive Damages: Though not a separate cause of action, claims for punitive damages are often included in hazing lawsuits to punish defendants for particularly egregious conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future. The complaint specifies seeking punitive damages in addition to actual damages due to the defendants’ conduct. Again, the threat of punitive damages can really drive compensation payouts in hazing lawsuits.

Key Hazing Law & Policy Developments

Date	Jurisdiction	Development	Practical Impact
Apr 25, 2025	Federal (U.S.)	Stop Campus Hazing Act takes effect	Annual transparency reports; hazing added to Clery reporting; funding risk for non-compliance.
Apr 29, 2025	North Carolina	“Harrison’s Law” enacted	Harsher penalties; potential felony liability for staff who ignore hazing.
Apr 29, 2025	Missouri	“Danny’s Law” enacted	Limited immunity for students who help victims or call 911.
Feb 21, 2024	New Jersey	Bill to revoke state aid for hazing offenders	Financial deterrent; aligns with federal reporting and education mandates.

The Claims That Reach the Deep Pockets

That is the general breakdown of the type of claims in a hazing lawsuit.  Let’s look closer now at the types of specific claims against national fraternities and sororities and the college or university. Because that is where you find real compensation in these lawsuits, not in suing 19-year-olds.

In lawsuits involving hazing, when negligence claims are leveled against national fraternities, sororities, and academic institutions, they usually center on the organizations’ and institutions’ purported inability to avert hazing activities, adequately oversee their chapters or students, and implement anti-hazing measures with vigor. Such legal proceedings frequently argue that these national bodies and educational entities bear the responsibility of safeguarding the welfare and security of their affiliates or students—a duty they purportedly neglected to fulfill.

So these negligence claims highlight the expectation that both national organizations and educational institutions not only establish anti-hazing policies but also actively work to enforce these policies and create an environment where hazing is not tolerated. The goal of including these entities in hazing lawsuits is often to hold them accountable for systemic failures that contribute to the perpetuation of hazing culture, with the aim of preventing future incidents.

Here’s an overview of how these negligence claims typically address these entities:

National Fraternities and Sororities

Duty of Care: Plaintiffs argue that national fraternities and sororities have a duty of care to their members, including pledges, to provide a safe environment. This includes implementing and enforcing comprehensive anti-hazing policies.

Failure to Supervise: The lawsuits often claim that national organizations failed to adequately supervise their local chapters, allowing a culture of hazing to flourish. This can include failing to provide sufficient training on anti-hazing policies, failing to monitor compliance, or not taking disciplinary action against chapters known to engage in hazing.

Failure to Enforce Anti-Hazing Policies: Even if a national organization has anti-hazing policies in place, plaintiffs may argue that these policies were not effectively enforced, leading to an environment where hazing practices could continue unabated.  Expectations need to be crystal clear.

Failure to Warn: There may also be claims that the national organizations failed to warn prospective members about the risks of hazing within the organization or did not provide adequate information about how to report hazing incidents.

Colleges, Universities, and Other Schools

Duty of Care: Similar to national organizations, colleges and universities are argued to have a duty of care to their students. This includes creating a safe campus environment where students are protected from the harm of hazing. These kids are adults… but not adults and every administration knows this.

Failure to Supervise: Institutions of higher education may be targeted for failing to adequately supervise student organizations, including fraternities and sororities, particularly when they are aware or should have been aware of hazing practices.  Society is no longer tolerating “kids will be kids” when this can lead to disaster.

Failure to Enforce Policies: Colleges and universities typically have their own anti-hazing policies and are expected to enforce these policies strictly. Negligence claims may arise when institutions fail to take adequate measures against known hazing practices or when their enforcement mechanisms are ineffective. In terms of jury appeal, this is a strong claim if procedures were not followed. Juries believe schools should do what they say they are going to do.

Negligent Admission of Dangerous Organizations: In some cases, colleges or universities may be accused of negligently allowing fraternities or sororities with histories of dangerous hazing practices to operate on campus, thus endangering students.

Failure to Educate: There might also be claims that the institution failed to educate students and student organizations about the dangers of hazing and the importance of reporting hazing activities.

Fraternity and Sorority Hazing Lawsuits

Hazing lawsuits against fraternities and sororities have become a key front in the battle for campus safety and institutional accountability. When hazing rituals turn violent, humiliating, or deadly, the resulting lawsuits often expose systemic failures… not just at the local chapter level but across national organizations and the universities that host them.

In recent years, juries and insurers have delivered significant payouts in these cases. One landmark example is the $10 million settlement in the death of Bowling Green State University student Stone Foltz, who was forced to consume a bottle of alcohol during a fraternity ritual. The fraternity paid $7 million, and the university paid $3 million, sending a message that both entities bear responsibility when hazing is allowed to persist.

Similarly, a Louisiana jury awarded $6.1 million to the family of Max Gruver, an LSU freshman who died after a hazing event masked as a “Bible Study.” In that case, the university also reached a separate settlement. More recently, Northwestern University quietly resolved dozens of claims from football players who reported a pattern of hazing and abuse within the team, including sexual misconduct and racial harassment.

These lawsuits are mostly about settlement compensation for victims.  This is what our lawyers do and we do not apologize for it.  But, often, it is not just about justice for individual victims. These lawsuits serve a greater good, holding national Greek organizations and educational institutions accountable for allowing these environments to thrive. In doing so, they create leverage for reform (and financial recovery, of course) for those harmed by what is too often dismissed as tradition.

Examples of Fraternity and Sorority Hazing

To understand why hazing lawsuits are both necessary and impactful, it helps to look at real-world examples of what these rituals entail. Fraternity and sorority hazing often goes far beyond pranks or bonding exercises. The conduct can involve psychological torment, physical abuse, and forced intoxication… sometimes with deadly consequences.

Some notorious examples include:

• Forced Alcohol Consumption: In many fatal hazing cases, pledges are stupidly coerced into drinking dangerous quantities of alcohol as part of initiation.  We now know in 2025 this is no longer fun and games.  It is dangerous and it can kill. This was tragically the case for Stone Foltz at Bowling Green and Max Gruver at LSU.

• Physical Assaults: At Kingfisher High School in Oklahoma, hazing included players being beaten with objects in locker rooms and on buses. Similarly, military-style hazing in university marching bands and athletic programs has led to severe injuries and legal claims.

• Sexualized Rituals: In several lawsuits, including claims at Seton Hall and Texas A&M, hazing involved forced nudity, simulated sexual acts, and demeaning physical positions. These activities are often filmed and shared to further humiliate victims.

• “Elephant Walk” and Similar Rituals: Some fraternities have been accused of organizing humiliating events involving public nudity, such as the so-called “elephant walk,” where pledges are forced to walk in a line while grasping each other in degrading ways. These rituals are not only traumatic but are also potential grounds for civil claims based on emotional distress and sexual humiliation.

These stories are not isolated. They reflect broader cultural failures in Greek life and athletic programs, failures that hazing lawsuits expose and remedy.

Can You Sue a College or Fraternity for Hazing?

Yes, students and families can sue a college, university, fraternity, or sorority for injuries and emotional harm caused by hazing. These lawsuits are typically based on claims of negligence, gross negligence, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. In cases where hazing leads to serious physical injury or death, wrongful death lawsuits may also be filed.

The most common defendants are:

• Fraternities and Sororities: Both local chapters and national organizations can be sued for enabling or ignoring dangerous rituals. Many hazing lawsuits allege that national groups failed to monitor their chapters or enforce anti-hazing policies.

• Colleges and Universities: Institutions have a legal duty to provide a safe environment for students. When they fail to supervise student organizations or investigate hazing reports properly, they may be held liable.

• Individual Students: Those who organized, participated in, or failed to stop the hazing may also be named as defendants. While they may not have financial resources, their conduct can influence the case against larger institutions.

Lawsuits often seek compensation for medical expenses, mental health treatment, lost academic opportunities, and long-term psychological harm. In the most serious cases, they can include claims for punitive damages.

Filing a lawsuit does not just provide compensation—it can also drive changes in policy and accountability that protect future students.

Hazing Abuse Settlements and Verdicts

Below are example hazing abuse lawsuits and settlements.

• $50,000 Settlement (Pennsylvania, 2025):  In a hazing lawsuit against the Tamaqua Area School District, families of two freshman football players settled their claims for $50,000, paid by the district’s insurance carrier. The claims stemmed from allegations that the players endured sexual assault during a 2021 hazing incident in the school’s field house. As part of the settlement, the families agreed to forgo further litigation, and the district will only pay a $5,000 deductible.
• $5,000,000 Settlement (Oklahoma 2024): This is a high school hazing case. The Kingfisher High School football program faced allegations of longstanding abuse, including sexual assault and physical violence, primarily attributed to Coach Jeff Myers and his staff. Accusations detail incidents in locker rooms and team buses, spanning nearly two decades, with claims of inaction by district and state education officials. Legal actions that followed included charges against the head coach and others for child neglect and abuse. The school district agreed to settle the claims for $5 million.
• $10,000,000 Settlement (Ohio 2023):  Stone Foltz, a 20-year-old student from Delaware, Ohio, embarked on his collegiate journey at Bowling Green State University.  He pledged to the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity (“PIKE”). During Bowling Green’s pledge week, the leaders of PIKE organized a “Big/Little” event—an initiation ritual where new pledges are paired with older fraternity members. A notorious tradition at this event required new members to attempt to finish an entire bottle of alcohol, a daunting and dangerous challenge for anyone, let alone young students with varying levels of alcohol tolerance. Tragically, the consequences of this ritual proved fatal for Stone. He was found unconscious at his apartment and died of fatal ethanol intoxication.  Bowling Green did the right thing.  It eliminated the fraternity and developed an anti-hazing plan that introduced a prevention coordinator and made it easier for students to report hazing incidents. Bowling Green paid the family a $3 million settlement; Pi Kappa Alpha paid $7 million.
• $6,100,000 Verdict (Louisiana 2023): Eighteen-year-old Max Gruver went to a “Bible Study” event hosted by the Phi Delta Theta fraternity at Louisiana State University. During this event, pledges were forced to drink alcohol for incorrect answers to questions about the fraternity. This led to Gruver’s death from ethanol intoxication. His family settled his hazing lawsuit against LSU for $875,000.  The case against the fraternity went to trial, leading to a $6.1 million payout.
• $120,000 Settlement (Ohio 2021): The plaintiff was a freshman member of the football team at defendant University of Toledo. He suffered a closed-head injury, resulting in a seizure, after he participated in a challenge to dunk a football over the goalpost on the university’s football field after a training session had ended for the day. The contest was referred to as the ‘O-line challenge’ and required players to jump off of the backs of other players who were positioned on their hands and knees in front of the goalpost.  The lawsuit claimed that the University violated Ohio’s anti-hazing statute, O.R.C. Sec. 2307.44, because it lacked an actively enforced anti-hazing policy. They also claimed the University was negligent based on the conduct of their employees who permitted the players to participate in the contest and failed to ensure that student athletes were not injured, specifically by allowing practices to be conducted without equipment.
• $82,000 Settlement (Alabama 2019): The plaintiff sued the Boy Scouts for injuries her son suffered during a hazing ritual performed by his fellow troop members. The older scouts in the troop used what they referred to as “Bear Calls” to conduct an initiation ritual known as “lumps and stripes,” during which they physically assaulted, hazed, and bullied younger scouts. During this ritual, the other scouts struck, belittled and threatened the plaintiff’s son, removed his clothing except for his underwear, tied him to a tree with a rope, beat, taunted, and threatened him, and then abandoned him.
• $70,000 Settlement (Oregon 2017): The plaintiff, a 41-year-old female, claimed that she suffered physical and emotional injuries as a result of hazing and bullying that she experienced while she was a member of the dance team at a high school operated by defendant Lake Oswego School District. The lawsuit accused the school district of violating Oregon law prohibiting hazing and bullying.
• $1,000,000 Settlement (Florida 2015): A 26-year-old university student in the band at Florida A&M University. He was subjected to a hazing ritual in which he had to go from one end of the team bus to the other while teammates in the seats physically beat him. He suffered serious physical injuries during this hazing and later died. His family sued the university for wrongful death.
• $3,000 Verdict (Kentucky 2012): This case involved three plaintiffs, female students who suffered blisters to their buttocks and emotional distress when they were subjected to hazing by the defendant sorority. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was vicariously liable for the hazing committed by sorority members during ‘Hell‘ week. The defendant denied liability, contended that it had a strict no-hazing policy and that the plaintiffs themselves were complicit in the violation.
• $25,000 Verdict (South Carolina 2010): A 30-year-old male employee at a nightclub died during a hazing ritual in which fellow employees at the club carried him outside and physically beat him until he lost consciousness. He sued the club, claiming it was negligent in the hiring and supervision of its employees, who subjected him to assault and battery and false imprisonment
• $4,200,000 Settlement (Texas 2008): An 18-year-old freshman was a student at the University of Texas at Austin and a pledge of the Zeta Chapter of Lambda Phi Epsilon, a fraternity. He died of alcohol poisoning, alleged as a result of a hazing ritual he was forced to endure in which pledges were given between four and eight bottles of liquor and coerced to finish the bottles. The lawsuit alleged that the activities were done in violation of the state anti-hazing statute.

Contact Us About Hazing Abuse Lawsuits

If you have a potential hazing abuse lawsuit, call us today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.