U.S. fraternity dropped from suit over explicit pictures of UA student

FAYETTEVILLE — A judge has dismissed national fraternal organization Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity Inc. from a lawsuit claiming that it should be held responsible for sexually explicit photographs of a University of Arkansas, Fayetteville student taken and distributed without consent.

The lawsuit may continue against the local chapter of the fraternity, according to an order filed Monday by Washington County Circuit Judge Doug Martin.

Attorneys for the woman suing the fraternity had argued that the national organization failed to properly train and supervise members of the local chapter. The national organization contended that it does not supervise or control the individual behavior of fraternity members.

Martin, in the order, also denied a motion for partial summary judgment filed by attorneys for “Jane Doe,” as the woman suing the fraternity is identified in court documents.

“Doe,” in the motion, had argued that a finding of liability should be entered against the local fraternity chapter, Gamma Chi Zeta of Lambda Chi Alpha, for claims of outrage and invasion of privacy, with a jury trial to determine damages. Martin, in his order, stated that “the Court finds disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment.”

The chapter had countered with its own motion for summary judgment, which Martin denied. A summary judgment can be rendered when evidence shows that there is no issue of material fact and that a party is entitled to a judgment in his or her favor.

Martin also denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the Lambda Chi Alpha Corporation, which is based in Fayetteville. Martin’s order means the lawsuit may continue against the corporation, which is described in court documents as the entity that leases the fraternity’s house from UA.

“The Plaintiff is grateful of the consideration of the Court to the facts and issues in this case and looks forward to presenting her claims against the Defendants at trial,” George Rozzell, an attorney representing “Doe,” said in an email.

Johnathan Horton, an attorney representing the fraternity, declined to comment.

The lawsuit states that at a 2017 fraternity party — an

event not registered with university officials as required — a “Picture Pledge” reached his cellphone over a locked bathroom stall to take pictures of sexual activity involving the woman suing the fraternity and an unnamed fraternity associate member.

The lawsuit describes the “Picture Pledge” as an associate member, or pledge, of the fraternity given tasks to do.

The photos were taken without the knowledge or consent of “Doe,” who was a freshman at UA at the time of the party, court documents state.

In court documents, the fraternity has denied that officers in the organization were involved in the actions of what the lawsuit calls the “Picture Pledge,” identified in court documents as Garrett Wolff.

In 2018, Wolff avoided a criminal trial on a misdemeanor charge of video voyeurism, instead entering into a one-year “diversion period” that among its requirements included completion of 100 hours of community service.

The local fraternity chapter, according to court documents, admitted that the photos were shared by Wolff to an email listserv used by fraternity members, and that a fraternity member “without knowledge or permission of the Chapter” downloaded the images to a cellphone and forwarded them to a student who wasn’t a fraternity member.

In court documents, the fraternity chapter has stated that it “denies it acted in concert with associate member Garrett Wolff and any member who distributed such photographs.”

Wolff, according to excerpts from a deposition included in court documents, has stated that before posting the pictures he spoke with the fraternity’s risk management chairman.

“He encouraged me to post them,” Wolff said, according to a deposition excerpt included in court documents filed on behalf of “Doe.”

Wolff was at one point added as a defendant in the lawsuit, but on Tuesday a motion was filed on behalf of “Doe” asking that he be dismissed as a defendant.