By Dave Smith
May 4, 2021
Syracuse, N.Y. - A lawsuit against Syracuse University involving alleged serial molester Conrad Mainwaring can go forward...
A judge ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought about by Robert Druger, a Camillus eye surgeon, who has accused Mainwaring of abusing him when he was a student at Nottingham High School and then later at SU.
The lawsuit states SU harbored Mainwaring who is accused of molesting more than 60 boys in the 80 s.
Druger alleges that both the City schools district and SU should have done more to protect students form Mainwaring.
The judge however dismissed the lawsuit against Syracuse City schools.
Judges keeps Syracuse University in lawsuit over accused ex-Olympian molester; city schools tossed
Updated May 04, 2021;
Posted May 04, 2021
Former Olympian Conrad Mainwaring is brought into the Berkshire County Superior Court for arraignment Tuesday, March 16, 2021, in Pittsfield, Mass. Mainwaring has pleaded not guilty to sexually molesting boys while working at a sports camp in western Massachusetts in the 1970s. (Stephanie Zollshan/The Berkshire Eagle via AP)AP
Facebook Share
But similar accusations against Syracuse city schools must be dismissed, the judge ruled.
Dr. Robert Druger, now a Camillus eye surgeon, accuses Mainwaring of abusing him repeatedly as a young man, first at Nottingham High School and later at SU. Druger sued both the university and school district, claiming that both institutions knew or should have known that Mainwaring was a sexual predator.
Editor’s note: This story includes descriptions of sexual assault.
An Onondaga County judge denied Syracuse University’s motions to dismiss two lawsuits involving sexual abuse allegations against former Olympic athlete and student Conrad Mainwaring.
The two lawsuits, filed separately in the Onondaga County Supreme Court in February 2020, allege that SU “knowingly and willingly failed” to conduct proper investigations into credible claims that Mainwaring was abusing young boys in his dorm, where he worked as a resident adviser.
In one case, SU tried to seek dismissal by arguing that the plaintiff, who was 17 years old when the abuse occurred in 1982, could not be protected by the Child Victim Act because he had reached the age of consent an argument the judge rejected and called “misplaced.”