Philadelphia, PA – The victim of a physical assault, during which anti-Semitic language was used, is suing not only his four alleged attackers, but also Temple University, where the incident occurred during the early morning hours of Feb. 15.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Jordan Blady, 23, of Northeast Philadelphia, who is Jewish, sustained severe facial injuries, including a broken nose and a fractured right eye socket during the attack, which took place outside a Jewish fraternity.
Blady had been in the area visiting a 22-year-old friend who attends the Community College of Philadelphia; his friend witnessed the assault.
Four Temple students have been charged in the crime: David Scott, 20, of Willow Grove, and his younger brother, Stephen Scott, 19; Michael Walsh, 20, of Florham Park, N.J.; and Bryan Pediero, 19, of East Brunswick, N.J. They are all free on bail.
According to the personal injury civil suit, filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, the student defendants “conspired to threaten the plaintiff and/or other persons of Jewish faith, intimidate him, and place him in fear for his life.”
The attack left Blady with a deviated septum that might require surgery. He is seeking in excess of $50,000 from Temple and the four defendants for compensatory and punitive damages.
Ray Betzner, director of news communications at the school, said in a statement that “the suit against Temple University is absolutely meritless and the university will defend itself vigorously.”
If the suit against Temple U. is groundless, why is it that Princeton U. had to make single-gender eating clubs co-ed and impose regulations against a private club having alcoholic drinks?
It was potential liability to the university then.
Applying the black-letter law principles taught in law schools throughout American (including, presumably, Temple’s own law school), Temple U would be dismissed as a defendant if the case were to be heard on the merits. But, as with other litigation, there is likely some collateral agenda involved here, and the inclusion of Temple U as a defendant is likely a strategic move by the plaintiff.
Possible considerations for including Temple U as a Defendant might include (but not be limited to) any or all of the following:
A. An incentive to get Temple to beef up its campus security, which is always a challenge, given the neighborhood in which the University is located.
B. Temple may (or, rather, does) have a deeper pocket than the other individual defendants.
C. Temple purports itself as a culturally diverse university which has successfully achieved harmony among diverse groups. The prospect of negative publicity from the lawsuit might not be consistent with Temple’s recruitment messages, and therefore, Temple might be willing to settle its part of the case before trial.
D. Now that Temple is in the position of having to defend itself in this lawsuit, the school can no longer comfortably espouse a “know-nothing, care about nothing” attitude regarding the extent of its concern into the extracurricular activities of its students.
Just hope these four nazis go to jail for a long time. . .