A federal judge on Monday (October 19) rejected a motion to dismiss the “ring boy” lawsuit against WWE/TKO, Vince McMahon, and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
In 2024, a lawsuit was filed against former WWE boss Vince, his wife Linda, and WWE/TKO on behalf of five survivors of what’s dubbed the “Ring Boy Scandal.” The seven plaintiffs who filed the suit claim they were sexually abused when they were minors in the 1980s and 1990s and setting up rings and running errands for WWE.
All of the
seven men allege abuse by former WWE ring announcer Mel Phillips, while one alleges sexual abuse by former WWE executive Pat Patterson, and one alleges sexual harassment against former WWE Vice President of Operations Terry Garvin.
Phillips, Patterson, and Garvin have all passed away. However, the suit claims negligence by the McMahons and WWE/TKO for allegedly allowing the abuse to take place and continue.
Brandon Thurston of POST Wrestling on Monday reported U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar rejected an effort by WWE/TKO and the McMahons to have the lawsuit dismissed on grounds that the Maryland Child Victims Act, which the plaintiffs used to file the case, violates the U.S. Constitution.
In their motion for dismissal, WWE/TKO and the McMahons cited difficulties in litigating a case based on alleged abuse from decades ago where the accused abusers are no longer living. The defendants contended the 14th Amendment of the Constitution protects people’s rights against unfair or arbitrary laws, which they argued that using the Child Victims Act would do. (The Maryland law eliminates time limits for filing lawsuits related to child sexual abuse.)
According to Thurston, Bredar wrote in his ruling that the defendants did not “show how their particular hardships make the [Maryland Child Victims Act] arbitrary or irrational.”
Since Bredar ruled the law is constitutional for use in the case, the lawsuit will now go to discovery phase, and a teleconference is scheduled for November 17 to set additional deadlines.
Share any thoughts you may have on the case or the judge’s ruling the comments.
