YOUNGSTOWN  The Catholic Diocese of Youngstown and administrators from Ursuline High School have formally denied allegations that they concealed a long-standing culture of sexualized hazing within the school’s football program, asserting in a new federal court filing that they acted swiftly and appropriately once specific misconduct was brought to their attention.

"Ursuline has stated repeatedly that the alleged conduct of some members of the football team on the 2025 Ursuline football camp trip violated Ursuline’s Student Handbook and Code of Conduct and were morally wrong," the Diocese and Ursuline said in a joint statement to 21 News, shared through their attorneys. 

"While we continue to honor the legal process and the privacy of all involved, our dedication to healing will continue to guide the response of Ursuline and the Church," the statement went on to say.

In an answer filed Monday in U.S. District Court, the institutional leaders—including the Diocese, Ursuline High School, Principal Matthew Sammartino, Assistant Principal Margaret Damore, and Athletic Director John DeSantis—rejected claims that they acted with deliberate indifference toward the safety of student-athletes. The filing serves as a direct rebuttal to a second amended complaint brought by the parents of two former players, identified as Son Doe and Son Roe, who allege they were subjected to sexual assault, physical abuse, and humiliation during school-sanctioned football camps.

The diocese and school deny that Ursuline harbors a "culture of violence" or a "tradition of hazing". Instead, school officials argue that their response to reports of misconduct during a June 2025 trip to Florida and other southern states was immediate and comprehensive, contradicting the families' narrative of administrative negligence and obstruction.

Central to the dispute is the timeline of when administrators learned of the abuse. The accusers allege that coaches and school leaders knew of hazing rituals dating back to at least 2022. However, the defense states that Sammartino, Damore, and DeSantis did not learn of the alleged actions involving the 2025 team until the mother of Son Doe, identified as Jane Doe, contacted them on June 23, 2025.

Upon receiving the report, the filing states that school leadership opened an internal investigation, notified child protective services in Trumbull and Mahoning counties, and contacted the Youngstown Police Department. The administration asserts that it issued "reasonable and appropriate discipline" to identified players in accordance with the school's code of conduct and preserved evidence for law enforcement. The defense argues that these investigatory steps were not disclosed to the public or the complainants at the time due to student privacy requirements under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

The answer also offers a defense regarding the conduct of the coaching staff, specifically Head Coach Daniel Reardon and assistants Timothy McGlynn and Christian Syrianoudis. The suing parties allege that coaches were present on the team bus while players openly discussed "taking butts," a phrase used to describe forcibly stripping and sexually humiliating teammates.

Ursuline’s legal team counters that during the bus rides, the coaches were spread throughout the vehicle and did not hear specific threats or allegations. They maintain that the players were eating, sleeping, and talking among themselves, and that no audible threats were made in the presence of the staff. Regarding the camps themselves, the institution states that the players were supervised by numerous adults and engaged in drills with students from other schools, making it impossible for coaches to monitor every conversation.

A significant portion of the defense filing addresses the video evidence cited by the parents. The complaint describes graphic videos circulated on Snapchat depicting sexual assault and physical violence. While acknowledging the existence of some videos, the respondents dispute the families' characterization of the events.

In response to descriptions of specific videos, the filing describes one incident as "playfully wrestling" and another as individuals engaged in a "simulated sex act" while fully clothed. Regarding a video that the accusers claim shows onlookers cheering during an assault, the diocese denies that the footage depicts "laughing and cheering". They further state they are unable to identify all individuals in the low-quality recordings or determine the context of certain acts.

Subodh Chandra, who is representing several plaintiffs across all four lawsuits against Ursuline and the Diocese, reacted to those characterizations in a statement to 21 News. 

"While we expected Defendants to minimize and deny as they have done in their public statements and as is common, what's disappointing is the extent to which they try to downplay the content of videos," Chandra said. "Once our review is complete, we will take the appropriate actions and look forward to our clients' day in court."

The filing also disputes the context of a conversation between Coach McGlynn and Jane Doe. The Doe and Roe families alleged McGlynn dismissed the abuse as "boys being boys." The defense contends that Jane Doe initially reported only that her son was being "nit-picked" without providing specifics of sexual misconduct. They argue that McGlynn’s response was a promise to address minor team conflict based on the limited information he possessed at the time.

Regarding allegations of historical misconduct, the school denies ignoring previous reports. In response to a claim that a female student, identified as Daughter Chef, was dragged across a gym floor by a football player in 2023, the administration states that officials met with the family and meted out appropriate discipline, noting that the parents were informed of their right to contact police.

The defendants raise several legal defenses in their request for the court to dismiss the case. They argue that the complainants assumed the risk of participation in the football program and that any alleged injuries were caused by the plaintiffs' own contributory negligence. The filing asserts that the school did not know specific individuals intending to cause bodily harm and, therefore, cannot be held liable for criminal acts committed by students.

Furthermore, the defense counsel argues that the alleged harassment described in the complaint was not severe or pervasive enough to deprive the students of educational opportunities under Title IX statutes. They maintain that because they lacked actual knowledge of the specific harassment until reports were made, they could not have acted with the deliberate indifference required to prove a civil rights violation.

The answer also emphasizes that prior to the 2025 trip, staff members underwent background checks and training on safe environment policies.

Regarding the decision to suspend coaches only after the lawsuit was filed, the defendants deny the plaintiffs' claim that the timing suggests a cover-up; instead, the filing states the suspensions are "pending the outcomes of the ongoing investigations and litigation" and asserts that the school is under no obligation to publicly explain its employment decisions.

The filing concludes with a request for the court to dismiss the complaint and award the defendants’ costs and attorney fees. The case remains before U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson as both sides prepare for the discovery phase of litigation.