Alexander v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.
2006 WL 3469575, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87301, 464 F.Supp.2d 751 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A national fraternity may have a duty to prevent hazing-related injuries at its local chapters if it has knowledge of ongoing hazing or underground pledging activities and maintains control over the chapter's member intake process. A plaintiff's recovery under comparative negligence is not barred unless their fault is equal to or greater than the combined fault of all tortfeasors, and punitive damages require proof of intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless conduct constituting a gross deviation from the standard of care.
Facts:
- In August 2003, Kappa member Sir Osei Smith met Javier Matlock, who claimed to be a Kappa member despite not being present during Smith's induction, leading Smith to believe Matlock was a "perpetrator" involved in underground pledging at Fisk University.
- Smith reported his suspicion of underground pledging, which Kappa forbids and considers hazing, to Randall Madison, Senior Vice Province Polemarch, who then informed Prentice "Jerry" Siegel, Province Polemarch.
- Siegel asked Jim Murrell, a Nashville Alumni Chapter member untrained in hazing investigations, to investigate the Fisk chapter, but Murrell conducted a "cursory" examination and reported finding nothing.
- In December 2003, Smith personally notified Siegel that Matlock was the alleged perpetrator, but Siegel stated nothing could be done and three hours later, initiated Matlock into Kappa.
- In September 2004, nineteen-year-old Akeem Alexander began an underground pledge program at Kappa’s Fisk chapter, led by Matlock, where Alexander was ordered to procure items, do chores, and endure nightly physical hazing sessions including beatings with canes and paddles lasting up to three and a half hours.
- Alexander was threatened with public humiliation if he quit the underground pledge process and warned that quitting would result in more abuse for other pledges.
- On September 13, 2004, a particularly violent hazing session caused a deep laceration on Alexander’s right buttocks and other injuries, and despite reporting vomiting and the laceration to Matlock the next day, Alexander was again paddled and beaten.
- On September 15, 2004, Alexander was hospitalized for five days with dehydration and severe lacerations, during which Kappa members telephoned him with warnings not to reveal the source of his injuries, ultimately forcing him to withdraw from Fisk University and lose his full scholarship.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, including Akeem Alexander, filed a lawsuit against Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. (Kappa), Prentice “Jerry” Siegel, and the Nashville Alumni Chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi in federal district court.
- Defendants Kappa and Siegel filed Motions for Summary Judgment.
- Defendant Nashville Alumni Chapter also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The plaintiffs filed responses to these motions.
- The defendants filed replies to the plaintiffs' responses.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. had a duty to prevent hazing-related injuries to a pledge, whether the comparative negligence doctrine should bar the plaintiffs from recovery, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages?
Opinions:
Majority - TRAUGER, District Judge
No, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants had a duty to prevent hazing-related injuries and whether the comparative negligence doctrine should bar the plaintiffs from recovery. Yes, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the defendants on the claims for punitive damages. The court found that precedent distinguishes fraternity headquarters based on their knowledge of hazing. Evidence in this case, including Smith’s report of a “perpetrator” (Matlock) involved in potential underground pledging and Kappa’s subsequent inadequate investigation and initiation of Matlock, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kappa was on notice that hazing may have been occurring at its Fisk chapter, thereby establishing a duty. Given Kappa’s control over member intake and ability to discipline members, a reasonable jury could conclude that Kappa had such a duty and breached it. On comparative negligence, under Tennessee law, a plaintiff can recover damages if their fault is less than 50% of the combined fault of all tortfeasors. While Alexander was warned about the “rough” nature of underground pledging and could have quit, he also faced threats of public humiliation and increased abuse for other pledges. Other courts have not allocated fault to the hazed pledge. Therefore, a reasonable jury could find Alexander’s portion of fault to be less than fifty percent. However, for punitive damages, Tennessee law requires proof of intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless conduct defined as a gross deviation from the standard of care. The court concluded that delegating an investigation to an untrained alumnus and initiating a possible perpetrator, while “not ideal” and potentially “ineffectual,” did not rise to the level of a “gross deviation” or reckless disregard necessary for punitive damages, especially since Kappa did take some steps to investigate.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that a national fraternity's knowledge of potential hazing or underground pledging, coupled with its control over local chapter activities, can establish a duty of care to prospective members. It emphasizes that passive anti-hazing policies are insufficient if not actively enforced through diligent investigation and appropriate action when credible reports arise. The ruling also underscores the high threshold for awarding punitive damages, requiring evidence of conduct that goes beyond mere negligence or ineffectiveness to a 'gross deviation' from the standard of care. This case is significant for future hazing litigation, suggesting that courts will carefully scrutinize the extent of a national organization's knowledge and control, as well as the victim's perceived culpability, but will reserve punitive damages for truly egregious conduct.
