ShareThis Page
Westmoreland

Suit blaming Yough for grad's suicide moves to federal court

Jeff Himler
| Thursday, Sept. 20, 2018, 6:18 p.m.
Jordan Bryan of West Newton is seen in this 2015 photo, taken when he attended Yough Senior High School.
Tribune-Review archive
Jordan Bryan of West Newton is seen in this 2015 photo, taken when he attended Yough Senior High School.

A wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of a Yough graduate, claiming the West Newton teen’s suicide came after sexual abuse by a district teacher, has been moved from Westmoreland County to federal court.

In the complaint against the school district, filed in August, Amy Tamasy and John Bryan allege their son, Jordan Bryan, committed suicide on Nov. 27 at age 19 because of “psychological/psychiatric damage” caused by abuse at the hands of his eighth-grade reading teacher.

According to the suit, the female teacher had an ongoing sexual relationship with the student beginning when he was 14 and had sexual contact with him more than 100 times before the conduct was reported to authorities in July 2017.

The Tribune-Review is not naming the teacher because no criminal charges have been filed in the case.

Jordan Bryan was a 2016 graduate of Yough, where he was a standout football player, and had begun studies at Westmoreland County Community College, according to his obituary.

His parents allege that district officials “acted with deliberate indifference” to allegations that the teacher was “sleeping with students” and that officials disciplined students who made such allegations but took no action against the teacher.

“At no time prior to Jordan Bryan’s suicide did school district officials investigate the allegations…,” the suit states.

Pittsburgh attorney Jaime Doherty, who represents Yough in the case, said the teacher in question has not been employed at the district since the start of the 2017-18 school year. Doherty declined to comment further on the case.

Yough Superintendent Janet Sardon said in a Sept. 21, 2017, statement that the district had been advised by the state’s child abuse hotline of “possible misconduct” and that an unidentified teacher was immediately suspended pending an investigation. The teacher submitted a letter of resignation, which the school board accepted Sept. 13, 2017.

Harrisburg-based Ben Andreozzi, who represents the parents, said in referring to Jordan Bryan: “The most important witness passed away before a criminal case would have been able to get off the ground.

“We have information to suggest that there may have been inappropriate contact with other students, and we’re encouraging anyone with information to come forward and report it to the authorities.”

Doherty and her colleague, Lisa Goodman, filed notice on Monday of the suit’s transfer to U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh. Yough’s attorneys contend that the federal court holds jurisdiction over the case since the parents allege that the district violated Jordan Bryan’s rights under federal Title IX Education Amendments.

The suit states that the alleged abuse “was severe and pervasive, created a sexually hostile educational environment, and unreasonably interfered with Jordan Bryan’s educational opportunities.”

The parents request a jury trial and seek an unspecified amount in damages.

“We’re hopeful that, by bringing this claim, we’ll be able to bring them some sense of closure,” Andreozzi said. “We have to try to determine how this (abuse) was allowed to happen, and who knew what when.”

Jeff Himler is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jeff at 724-836-6622, jhimler@tribweb.com or via Twitter @jhimler_news.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me