Home » News » Latest Penn State News » Penn State Insists it’s Moving Forward on Lawsuits Despite Report

Penn State Insists it’s Moving Forward on Lawsuits Despite Report

StateCollege.com Staff

, , , ,

Despite a published report that claims Penn State is moving too slowly and has taken ‘little concrete action’ to move forward with settling civil suits filed by Jerry Sandusky’s child sex abuse victims, university officials stand by the process. 

‘The university has had multiple conversations with lawyers representing individual victims of Mr. Sandusky. This is the beginning of a very complex process involving multiple interested parties,’ Penn State spokesman Dave La Torre said on Thursday.

‘The university remains committed to resolving the victims claims in a fair manner that also respects their privacy.’

Attorneys for Sandusky’s victims who have filed civil suits against Penn State told the Associated Press that they have had ‘very limited contact’ with the university and that should it persists, Penn State could face more lawsuits. 

According to Penn State’s ‘progress’ website, three lawsuits, all civil, have been filed against the university.

A statement from university officials on the site says, ‘The university is taking these cases very seriously but cannot otherwise comment on pending litigation. President Erickson and the Board of Trustees have publicly emphasized that their goal is to find solutions that rest on the principle of justice for the victims.’

However, according to the AP, since Sandusky was convicted on June 22 of 45 of 48 counts of abusing 10 boys over a 15-year period, there have been at least eight legal teams representing at least 20 people who are, at the very least, threatening pursuing legal action against Penn State.

‘The plaintiffs are not in a position to resolve the cases – that’s Penn State’s job,’ said lawyer Matt Casey to the AP, whose team represents four Sandusky victims, including son Matt, and an unspecified number of other accusers.

‘Frankly, we’ve heard a lot of discussion, but no specific action,’ Casey said. ‘Accordingly, in that posture, the only choice is to proceed with aggressively litigating.’