Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM CAPUTO, District Judge. Presently before the Court are Defendants Diocese of Scranton (the “Diocese”), Sacred Heart of Jesus Church (“Sacred Heart”), Bishop James C. Timlin (“Bishop Timlin”), Rev. Joseph R. Kopacz (“Father Kopacz”) (collectively the “Diocesan Defendants”) and Brother Antonio F. Anto-nucci’s (“Brother Antonucci”) (collectively “Defendants”) motions for summary judgment (Docs.75-1, 76) as to Counts I, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of Plaintiff John Doe’s Complaint (Doc. 1). The Diocesan Defendants also seek summary judgment as to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motions. The Court has jurisdiction over this- matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a). BACKGROUND 1. Factual History A. Defendant Rev. Albert M. Libera-tore and Richard Roe Defendant Rev. Albert M. Liberatore (“Liberatore”) was ordained as a priest in the Diocese by Bishop Timlin on August 26, 1989. (Curriculum Vitae of Rev. Albert M. Liberatore, Doc. 88-2 p. 5, “Liber-atore CV”.) Following several years of study at the Catholic University of Lou-vain, in Leuven, Belgium, towards obtaining a Ph.D. in Theology, Liberatore returned to Scranton and, in June of 1995, was assigned by Bishop Timlin to serve as Vocations Director of the Diocese. (Bishop James C. Timlin Dep. 168:2-5, Sept. 22, 2006, Docs. 88-5, 88-6; Liberatore CV at 2.) Liberatore took up residence at St. Pius X Seminary (the “Seminary”) in Dalton, Pennsylvania. (Liberatore CV at 2.) Li-beratore also taught classes at the University of Scranton as a non-resident faculty member. (Liberatore CV at 2; Richard Roe Dep. 11:18-19, Sept. 5, 2006, Doc. 88-4.) In the fall of 1995, Liberatore befriended Richard Roe (“Roe”), a twenty-one (21) year old male student in the Sacramental Theology class which he taught at the University of Scranton. (Roe Dep. 11:17— 14:18.) Later that semester, Liberatore wrote Roe a letter inquiring as to whether Roe was interested in discerning whether he had a calling for the priesthood. (Roe Dep. 12:1-22.) Roe, in fact, was interested, and, thereafter, he and Liberatore began spending a great deal of time together. (Roe Dep. 15:2-18:22.) Liberatore took Roe out to dinner, purchased gifts for him, and took him to New York City on multiple occasions. (Id.) In the spring of 1996, Liberatore encouraged Roe, then a college senior and near graduation, to pursue a full-time position as the Director of Youth and Young Adult Retreats for the Diocese. (Roe Dep. 20:9-11.) This position would require Roe to have an office at the Seminary, where Liberatore resided. (Roe Dep. 21:10-12.) Roe was hired for the position, thanks in part to Liberatore’s recommendation. (Roe Dep. 21:14-18.) After Roe graduated from the University of Scranton, Liberatore took him to Los Angeles, California, as a graduation gift. (Roe Dep. 23:1-15.) The night before Li-beratore and Roe were to fly to Los Ange-les they went out to several bars to drink. (Roe Dep. 24:1-6.) On the way home, Liberatore and Roe sat in the back seat of a car driven by one of Liberatore’s friends. (Roe Dep. 24:8-17.) During the drive, Li-beratore “leaned on [Roe] and put his hand on [Roe’s] thigh.” (Roe Dep. 24:20-22.) Roe construed this as a sexual overture. (Roe Dep. 27:17.) Despite the sexual overture on the part of Liberatore, for much of the summer of 1996, Roe stayed in Liberatore’s bedroom at the Seminary while he looked for an apartment. (Roe Dep. 29:1-6; 33:1.) After Roe had found an apartment, he oftentimes stayed overnight in Liberatore’s bedroom at the Seminary. (Roe Dep. 32:16-33:1.) This state of affairs was not kept secret from the other seminarians. (Roe Dep. 33:5-8.) Liberatore would also oftentimes fail to return to the Seminary and instead stay overnight at Roe’s apartment. (Roe Dep. 46:1-4.) Near the end of the summer of 1996, Liberatore began having discussions with Roe about sexuality, particularly in regard to what had transpired in the car on the way home from the night of drinking. (Roe Dep. 19:14-22; 27:2-18.) During the fall of 1996, Liberatore took Roe and another seminarian, Michael Moe (“Moe”), who was then nineteen (19) years of age, to New York City for dinner and drinks. (Roe Dep. 29:19-31:7; Decl. of Michael Moe ¶ 15, Sept. 14, 2006, Doc. 88-8.) The three of them then stayed the night in a hotel suite. (Roe Dep. 30:18-31:1.) While Moe slept on the couch, Li-beratore and Roe slept in the lone bed. (Roe Dep. 31:14-16.) This incident was called to the attention of Bishop Timlin by Father Bambera, who, in November of 1996, wrote a memo to Bishop Timlin expressing “serious concerns ... regarding questionable behavior of Father A1 Liberatore.” (Memo from Father Bambera to Bishop Timlin, dated November 27, 1996, Doc. 80-7, “Bambera Memo”.) Father Bambera described this incident as one of “grave concern.” (Id.) Father Bambera also informed Bishop Timlin of the “evolution of [the] relationship” between Liberatore and Roe, which he stated had “become very obvious to the seminarians as well.” (Id.) While Father Bambera opined that he did not feel there was anything improper about the relationship, he related to Bishop Timlin that Li-beratore and Roe spent “an inordinate amount of time” together, that Roe was “often in [Liberatore’s] rooms until late at night”, and that Roe “often becomes the focus of [Liberatore’s] attention at seminary gatherings.” (Id.) Father Bambera also' noted that he had informed others in the Diocese, namely Monsignor David Bohr, Bishop Dougherty, Monsignor John Esseff and Monsignor Dale Rupert, of the relationship between Liberatore and Roe. (Id.) On an evening in the fall of 1996, Liber-atore and Roe were watching a movie in Liberatore’s room at the Seminary. (Roe Dep. 39:1-22.) Roe was lying on the couch while Liberatore was lying on the floor near the couch. (Id.) After the movie, Liberatore tried to touch Roe in a sexually explicit manner. (Roe Dep. 46:12-18.) Li-beratore then began to discuss sexuality— homosexuality in particular — with Roe. (Roe Dep. 43:8-12.) During this conversation, Liberatore encouraged Roe to engage in homosexual relations with him. (Roe Dep. 43:11^44:10.) Liberatore also discussed with Roe the homosexual activity that Liberatore had engaged in with others, including describing in detail what homosexual acts he had performed. (Roe Dep. 44:17-22.) In fact, Liberatore described homosexual acts in which he had engaged while living in the Seminary. (Roe Dep. 44:20-22.) In the early part of 1997, Liberatore and Roe took a trip to Philadelphia. (Roe Dep. 50:10-13.) After spending the evening at Dave & Buster’s, a bar and arcade, Liber-atore and Roe stayed the night in a hotel room. (Roe Dep. 53:16-22.) During the night, Liberatore “got out of his bed and got into [Roe’s] bed and laid down next to [Roe] and put his arm around [Roe], and at some point during the night [Libera-tore] put his hand down [Roe’s] pants.” (Id.) Roe related other incidents in which Li-beratore made unwanted sexual contact with him, including one instance when Roe awakened to find Liberatore’s penis in his hand. (Roe Dep. 69:6-7.) Another incident, occurring during the spring of 1997, began at dinner when Li-beratore maneuvered his foot into Roe’s crotch while they were at a restaurant. (Roe Dep. 56:20-57:2.) After dinner, Li-beratore invited Roe back to spend the night in his bedroom at the Seminary. (Roe Dep. 57:16-18.) While speaking in the sitting room before heading to bed, Liberatore expressed his displeasure in Roe’s attraction to a young woman whom he knew. (Roe Dep 47:14-48:15; 58:2-7.) Roe then “got pretty emotional” and started to cry. (Roe Dep. 58:7-9.) Roe then tried to leave Liberatore’s room, but Li-beratore physically blocked his attempt. (Roe Dep. 59:2-4.) Roe then tried to throw Liberatore out of the way. (Roe Dep. 59:9.) Pushing and shoving ensued, and Liberatore ended up falling on the ground. (Roe Dep. 59:10-11.) This altercation awakened many, if not all, of the seminarians and faculty. (Letter from Roe to The Seminarians of St. Pius X Seminary, dated April 5, 1997, Doc. 80-8, “Roe Letter”.) One seminarian, Reverend Thomas Muldowney (“Father Muldow-ney”), even came to Liberatore’s room to help calm Roe down. (Roe Dep. 59:12-13.) Father Muldowney stated in his deposition that Roe, appearing very upset, yelled, “I’m a twenty-two (22) year old' fucking homosexual.” (Reverend Thomas Mul-downey Dep. 46:1-4, Dec. 8, 2005, Doc. 88-8 p. 16 of 26.) Father Muldowney stated that several other seminarians heard the commotion and came to the room. (Mul-downey Dep. 46:5-11.) Father Muldowney reported the incident to Monsignor Bohr, the Rector at the Seminary, who, in turn, contacted Bishop Timlin to inform him of it. (Monsignor David Bohr Dep. 42:8-43:11, Jan. 3, 2006, Doc. 82-2.) Eventually, Roe was calmed down and then fell asleep in Liberatore’s room. (Roe Dep. 60:1-3.) When Roe woke up the next morning, he found that he was in Libera-tore’s bed with Liberatore in bed next to him. (Roe Dep. 60:4-6.) Liberatore’s hand was down Roe’s pants and was touching Roe’s penis. (Roe Dep. 60:7.) Libera-tore then attempted to perform oral sex on Roe. (Roe Dep. 61:2-3.) At that point, the bell for morning prayer rang, and Roe was able to extricate himself from the situation. (Roe Dep. 60:12-18.) A few days later, Roe told Monsignor Rupert that he had been sleeping in Liber-atore’s bedroom, in Liberatore’s bed. (Roe Dep. 62:20-63:3.) Roe also informed Monsignor Rupert that Liberatore had made several attempts to have homosexual contact with Roe. (Roe Dep. 63:12-15.) Roe had many conversations with Monsignor Rupert regarding his relationship with Liberatore. (Roe Dep. 63:9-10.) In March of 1997, Bishop Timlin was informed of an incident involving Libera-tore and one of the male seminarians. (Summary of Concerns Regarding Fr. Li-beratore, dated March 1997, Doc. 88-8, “Summary”.) During a tour of the Seminary, on February 24, 1997, twenty (20) boys from Bishop Hoban High School “passed by the open door to Peter Poe’s room in which Fr. A1 [Liberatore] was seen lying on Peter’s bed and being given a back massage by Peter.” (Summary at 2.) Bishop Timlin was also informed of Liberatore’s “close relationships” with several of the seminarians, including Michael Moe. (Summary at 1.) After the altercation between Liberatore and Roe and the back massage with Poe, Bishop Timlin removed Liberatore from the Seminary and reassigned him to St. Clare’s Parish in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. (Bohr Dep. 44:8-9; 68:21-69:4; See Roe Letter at 3.) In July of 1997, Liberatore was reassigned again, this time to Sacred Heart, located in Duryea, Pennsylvania. (See Doc. 1-1 ¶ 11.) Shortly thereafter, Liberatore was named the Pastor of Sacred Heart. (See id.) B. Liberatore and Plaintiff Plaintiff was a parishioner and alter server of Sacred Heart. (Moe Deck ¶ 20.) In 1999, Liberatore, as Pastor of Sacred Heart, hired Plaintiff, who was then fourteen (14) years of age, to work at Sacred Heart as a sacristan. (See Doc. 1-1 ¶ 14; Patricia Minora Dep. 13:1-6, Jan. 26, 2006, Doc. 89-2.) Over the course of the next year, Liberatore “groomed” Plaintiff (Pl.’s Dep. 166:4-7, Oct. 17, 2006, Doc. 89-3 p. 13) — that is, Liberatore undertook to establish an intimate friendship with Plaintiff in preparation to the eventual introduction of sexual activity. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, “Child Grooming”, http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Child_gr ooming (last visited March 15, 2007). During this time, Liberatore took Plaintiff to movies and restaurants (PL’s Dep. 153:3-5), and gave him expensive gifts, such as a Movado watch, a cellular phone and fencing equipment. (Minora Dep. 15:4-10; 17:14-16.) The Diocesan Defendants agree that Li-beratore’s actions with regard to Plaintiff would be characterized as grooming behavior. (Timlin Dep. 36:8-37:9.) Liberatore also provided counseling to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs mother after Plaintiffs father had taken ill and, then, passed away. (Moe Decl. ¶¶ 22-25.) Liberatore became a father figure to Plaintiff. (Id.; Pl.’s Dep. 189:20-190:1.) Eventually, Liberatore began to make sexual overtures toward Plaintiff. (Pl.’s Dep. 166:7-10.) More than two years of sexual abuse ensued, ultimately ending in May of 2002. (See Doc. 1-1 ¶ 37.) During this period of time, Plaintiff would routinely sleep in Liberatore’s bed in the Rectory at Sacred Heart. (PL’s Dep. 169:24-25.) On nights Plaintiff would sleep over, Li-beratore would oftentimes “spoon” Plaintiff (PL’s Dep. 173:5-10) — that is, Libera-tore and Plaintiff would lie in bed on their sides with Liberatore’s front to Plaintiffs back, such that they fit together in a manner similar to spoons. Wikipedia, supra, “Spooning”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Spooning. On many nights, Liberatore would masturbate while Plaintiff was lying with him in bed. (PL’s Dep. 173:10-14.) Plaintiff also related incidents in which Liberatore would grope Plaintiffs genitals (PL’s Dep. 173:21-25), wear Plaintiffs clothes (PL’s Dep. 173:21-22), and describe sexual techniques and other graphic sexual behavior (PL’s Dep. 179:1-5). Liberatore would also wrestle with Plaintiff, oftentimes groping him in a sexual manner rather than attempt a wrestling maneuver. (PL’s Dep. 65:18-66:2.) Liberatore also admitted to Plaintiff that he was a homosexual, and described to Plaintiff sexually explicit acts which he and his homosexual friends would perform. (PL’s Dep.l79:12-16.) Liberatore also took Plaintiff on trips to New York, staying overnight in a single hotel room with only one bed. (PL’s Dep. 189:5-14.) In addition, Liberatore took Plaintiff to Belgium while he was completing his dissertation. (PL’s Dep. 152:12; Minora Dep. 15:6.) While in Belgium, Plaintiff slept in the same bed with Libera-tore, who would masturbate in the bed and grope Plaintiff while he tried to sleep. (PL’s Dep. 245:7-13.) C. The Diocesan Defendants On several occasions the Diocesan Defendants were informed of some of the behavior involving Liberatore and Plaintiff. In January of 2001, Patricia Minora (“Minora”), a friend of Plaintiffs mother, spoke to two priests with whom she had been long-time friends, Monsignors Kevin O’Neill and Joseph Kelly, about her suspicions concerning the relationship between Liberatore and Plaintiff. (Minora Dep. 21:14-31:8.) Minora told them that Plaintiff slept overnight in the Rectory with Liberatore, and that Liberatore had given Plaintiff extravagant gifts and even taken Plaintiff on overnight trips. (Id.) These priests advised Minora to contact Father Kopacz and inform him of her suspicions. (Id.) Minora then called Father Kopacz and told him of the relationship between Liberatore and Plaintiff. (Id.) After receiving a phone call from Minora concerning the relationship between Liber-atore and Plaintiff, Monsignor Kevin O’Neill wrote a letter to Bishop Timlin informing him as to what Minora had told him — i.e., that Plaintiff had been sleeping overnight in Liberatore’s bedroom at the Rectory and that Liberatore had taken Plaintiff on several overnight trips. (Letter from Monsignor Kevin O’Neill to Bishop Timlin, dated January 29, 2001, Doc. 89-4 p. 34 of 42, “O’Neill Letter”.) Additionally, in late 2000 and early 2001, Ann Marie Zongilla (“Zongilla”), a cook and housekeeper at Sacred Heart (Ann Marie Zongilla Dep. 6:24-25, Jan. 30, 2006, Doc. 89-4), voiced her suspicion that Li-beratore was sexually abusing Plaintiff to Susan Doxbeck, the Pastoral Assistant at Sacred Heart, Father Emmanuel, a priest at Sacred Heart, Reverend Edward Williams (“Father Williams”), also a priest at Sacred Heart, and Monsignor John Bendik. (Zongilla Dep. 28:18-21; 36:21-24; 37:6-8; 44:2-9; 60:13-15; Reverend Edward Williams Dep. 35:19-23, Jan. 26, 2006, Doc. 80-2.) In the fall of 2001 (see Williams Dep. 35:19-23), Helen Negvesky (“Negvesky”), an employee for the Diocese, informed Monsignor Bendik of her concerns about the relationship between Liberatore and Plaintiff. (Helen Negvesky Dep. 40:5-21, Nov. 17, 2005, Doc. 80-4.) Negvesky testified that she told Monsignor Bendik that Plaintiff was “around the Rectory more than [she] thought he should be, and the way Father [Liberatore] looked at him, that they went places together, and just that it didn’t seem right, ... [and] it didn’t look good.” (Negvesky Dep. 41:22-42:3.) Negvesky also told Monsignor Bendik of an incident in which Plaintiff “put his hand down Liberatore’s pants.” (Negvesky Dep. 42:14-17.) Negvesky also stated that there were empty bottles of alcohol littered around Liberatore’s room in the Rectory, and, consequently, she suspected that Liberatore was plying Plaintiff with alcohol. (Negvesky Dep. 43:14-22.) Also in the fall of 2001, after receiving reports from Negvesky and Zongilla concerning suspicious behavior engaged in by Liberatore and Plaintiff, Father Williams spoke with Monsignor Bendik about the relationship between Liberatore and Plaintiff. (Williams Dep. 35:19-36:25.) Father Williams informed Monsignor Bendik that he thought Liberatore was obsessed with Plaintiff and that Liberatore spent an inordinate amount of time with Plaintiff, including wrestling with Plaintiff and taking Plaintiff on overnight trips. (Williams Dep. 35:19-36:25.) Father Williams also told Monsignor Bendik that the Sacred Heart staff suspected that Liberatore was sexually abusing Plaintiff. (Williams Dep. 37:7-9.) Monsignor John Bendik acknowledged that he had received calls from Negvesky and Zongilla, each of whom voiced a suspicion that Liberatore was sexually abusing Plaintiff. (Monsignor John Bendik Dep. 38:18-19; 41:1; 41:20; 47:1-2, Doc. 89-1.) Monsignor Bendik also stated that he had spoken with Father Williams, who expressed his own concerns regarding the impropriety of the relationship between Liberatore and Plaintiff. (Bendik Dep. 52:15-17.) After his conversation with Father Williams, Monsignor Bendik contacted Father Kopacz and “told him there was a concern expressed to me from the Parish of Sacred Heart about [the] relationship [between Liberatore and Plaintiff].” (Ben-dik Dep. 38:18-22.) Specifically, Monsignor Bendik told Father Kopacz that Li-beratore had “a relationship with a young man [at Sacred Heart] parish that could be going beyond the barriers, beyond the parameters, and he better check it out.” (Bendik Dep. 65:18-20.) Monsignor Ben-dik also told Father Kopacz that “something had better be done for the sake of [Plaintiff].” (Bendik Dep. 61:11-12.) As noted above, Bishop Timlin was informed of Liberatore’s behavior, with regard to both Roe and Plaintiff, and the suspicions raised by it. With regard to Roe, Bishop Timlin received the Bambera Memo informing him of Father Bambera’s “grave concernís]” regarding the relationship between Liberatore and Roe, including the fact that Roe was often in Libera-tore’s room until late at night. (Bambera Memo.) Bishop Timlin was also notified of the incident that occurred late at night at the Seminary involving Liberatore and Roe. (Bohr Dep. 42:8-43:11.) In addition, Bishop Timlin was informed of Poe giving Liberatore a back massage while Libera-tore lay on Poe’s bed. (Summary at 2.) With regard to Plaintiff, in January of 2001, Bishop Timlin received the O’Neill Letter informing him that Plaintiff oftentimes slept overnight in Liberatore’s bedroom at the Rectory and that Liberatore had taken Plaintiff on several overnight trips. (O’Neill Letter.) D.Brother Antonio F. Antonucci Brother Antonio Antonucci, a Benedictine monk who moved to Scranton in the Fall of 2000 to attend the University of Scranton (Brother Antonio Antonucci Dep. 12:7-13:14-15; 14:12-13, Sept. 18, 2006, Doc. 90-2), was also informed of Libera-tore’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff. (PL’s Dep. 65:1-66:19). Specifically, Plaintiff told Brother Antonucci, who worked as a cantor, custodian and cook at Sacred Heart (Doc. 76 ¶ 5), that he slept in Liberatore’s bed in the Rectory (Pl.’s Dep. 64:8-11), and that Liberatore would grope Plaintiff in a sexual manner while they wrestled. (Pl.’s Dep. 65:14-66:5.) Rather than encourage Plaintiff to contact the police, or, at the least, tell his mother, Brother Anto-nucci instructed Plaintiff “to forgive [Li-beratore], to keep the issue private, and to not let other people know because it would ruin [Plaintiffs] life and [the lives of] others.” (PL’s Dep. 66:12-15.) E. Plaintiff’s Relationship with Li-beratore Ends In May of 2002, when Plaintiff was seventeen (17) years old, Liberatore touched Plaintiffs genitals while they were in Li-beratore’s office at the University of Scranton. (Votum of Bishop Joseph Mar-tino, dated July 23, 2004, Doc. 88-2 pp. 2-3, “Votum”.) Later that month, Libera-tore took Plaintiff on a trip to New York, staying overnight in the same bed at a hotel. (See PL’s Dep. 197:23-25; 199:19-23; Doc. 1-1 ¶ 37.) During the night, Liberatore tried to give Plaintiff oral sex, placing his mouth around Plaintiffs penis. (PL’s Dep. 199:19-23.) At this point, it became obvious to Plaintiff that Liberatore had homosexual intentions regarding him. (Id.) These were the last incidents of sexual abuse perpetrated by Liberatore upon Plaintiff. F. Liberatore’s Dismissal from the Clergy and his Criminal Convictions In July of 2003, Joseph Martino was named Bishop of Scranton, replacing Bishop Timlin. (Bishop Joseph Martino Dep. 10:5, July 13, 2006, Doc. 88-3.) Martino officially became Bishop on October 1, 2003. (Bishop Martino Dep. 11:9.) At some point early in his tenure, Bishop Martino became aware of the rumors and incidents involving Liberatore. (Bishop Martino Dep. 14:5-8.) Upon review of Liberatore’s personnel file, Bishop Martino became “alarmed” at the history- of inappropriate behavior. (Bishop Martino Dep. 21:12-25.) Bishop Martino was troubled by the incident at the Seminary involving Roe, the back massage involving Peter Poe, and another incident which occurred in December of 2002 while Liberatore was visiting the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. (See Bishop Martino Dep. 32:12-33:25.) Bishop Martino discovered that, sometime during Liberatore’s tenure as a priest in the Diocese, he had been sent to Southdown Institute, a non-profit clinic and psychological treatment facility for clergy located in Ontario, Canada, http://www.southdown.on.ca/# . (See Bishop Martino Dep. 39:23-40:2.) Bishop Mar-tino spoke with Liberatore in late November of 2003 about the concerns raised by Liberatore’s file. (Bishop Martino Dep. 41:5-20.) In January of 2004, Plaintiff and another young man came forward and alleged that Liberatore had sexually abused them. (See Bishop Martino Dep. 108:16-18.) Later that month, Bishop Martino hired an investigator, James Seidel (“Seidel”), to investigate these allegations. (Bishop Martino Dep. 108:8-11; see James Seidel Investigative Insert, Doc. 89-5 pp. 16-17.) In May of 2004, Liberatore was arrested and charged with sexual abuse in the State of New York, as well as multiple counts of indecent assault and corruption of minors in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 89-3 pp. 34^44; Doc. 41-2 p. 24.) Liberatore pleaded guilty to those offenses. (Id.) On July 23, 2004, Bishop Martino dismissed Liberatore from the clerical state, having concluded that “the delict of sexual abuse of a minor was committed by the Reverend Albert M. Libera-tore.” (Votumatl.) II. Procedural History On November 5, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court. (Doc. 1-1.) Therein, Plaintiff asserted a claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a section of The Child Abuse Victims’ Rights Act of 1986. (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 48-51.) Plaintiff also raised state law claims of assault and battery (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 52-55), vicarious liability (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 56-62), aiding and abetting (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 63-68), negligent hiring, supervision and retention (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 69-75), negligence per se (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 76-81), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 82-88), and breach of fiduciary duty (Doc. 1-1 ¶¶ 89-95). On November 3, 2006, both the Diocesan Defendants and Brother Antonucci filed motions for summary judgment. (Docs.75, 76.) These motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is material if proof of its existence or nonexistence might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Where there is no material fact in dispute, the moving party need only establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Where, however, there is a disputed issue of material fact, summary judgment is appropriate only if the factual dispute is not a genuine one. See id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. An issue of material fact is genuine if “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. Where there is a material fact in dispute, the moving party has the initial burden of proving that: (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See 10A ChaRles Alan Weight, ARthuk R. Millee & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2D § 2727 (2d ed.1983). The moving party may present its own evidence or, where the nonmoving party has the burden of proof, simply point out to the Court that “the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of her case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party, and the entire record must be examined in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See White v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir.1988). Once the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to either present affirmative evidence supporting its version of the material facts or to refute the moving party’s contention that the facts entitle it to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-257, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The Court need not accept mere conclu-sory allegations, whether they are made in the complaint or a sworn statement. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, “the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. DISCUSSION The Diocesan Defendants now move the Court to grant summary judgment in their favor as to Counts I, III, V, VI, VII and VIII of Plaintiffs Complaint. Also, Brother Antonucci moves the Court to grant summary judgment in his favor as to Counts IV, VI, VII and VIII of Plaintiffs Complaint. The Diocesan Defendants also seek summary judgment as to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. I. Plaintiffs Federal Law Claim (Count I) Under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, “[a]ny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422 or 2423 of this title[, sections which prohibit, inter alia, child molestation, exploitation and pornography,] and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such a person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” Section 2255 thus provides child victims of sexual abuse, molestation and exploitation with a federal cause of action for money damages. The issue here is against whom may that federal cause of action be brought. The Diocesan Defendants argue that section 2255 only subjects Liberatore, the one who has violated statutes listed in section 2255, to civil liability. Conversely, Plaintiff argues that the Diocesan Defendants can be held liable for the offenses committed by Liberatore under the doctrine of agency. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has had any cases concerning section 2255. Indeed, there is only a single reported case involving section 2255. In Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603, 613 (E.D.Va.2005), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, held, after analyzing the legislative history of section 2255 to determine Congress’ intent, that a criminal conviction under one of the listed statutes was not a prerequisite to the institution of a civil action under section 2255. The court first noted that section 2255 was enacted as part of The Child Abuse Victims’ Rights Act of 1986 on October 18, 1986. Id. at 611; see Pub.L. No. 99-500, 100 Stat. 1783-39 (1986). This enactment expanded the scope of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977, Pub.L. 95-225, 92 Stat. 7 (1978), “to provide a civil remedy for personal injuries suffered by victims of child sexual exploitation.” Id. Initially, this civil remedy was to be included in the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statutes, which already provided remedies for victims of crime. Id. (citing 132 Cong. Rec. H3362-02 (daily ed. June 5, 1986) (statement of Rep. Young) (“The Child Abuse Victims!’] Rights Act of 1986 is a crucial piece of legislation. This bill would at last add the sexual exploitation of children part to the-Racketeer[ ] Influence[d] and Corrupt Organizations statute! ]”))• Later drafts of the bill were also proposed to be contained within the RICO statutes. Id. (citing 132 Cong. Rec. E1983-01 (daily ed. June 5, 1986) (statement of Rep. Siljander during extension of remarks)). “The intent in proposing to include the statute within RICO was to allow for increased criminal penalties as well as expanded investigatory powers to arrest perpetrators of the offenses.” Id. (citing 132 Cong. Rec. H3362-02 (daily ed. June 5, 1986) (statement of Rep. Young)). Child pornography, transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity and related offenses, sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2260, 2421, 2422 and 2423, were, in fact, added to the definition of racketeering activities under the RICO statutes. Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B) (including within the definition of “racketeering activity” any act which is indictable under sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2260, 2421, 2422 and 2423). At first, the proposed civil remedy would have given the Government or the victim the right to sue the offender in order to receive treble damages and attorney fees, but not until after the “offender [was] convicted under Civil RICO.” 132 Cong. Rec. E290-02 (Feb. 5, 1986) (statement of Rep. Siljander) (“If an offender is convicted under Civil RICO, the Government or the victim is given the right to sue the offender in order to receive treble damages and attorney fees”). In later debates, a bill was proposed that provided a cause of action to any person injured personally from an act indictable under certain child sexual exploitation statutes. Smith, 376 F.Supp.2d at 611 (citing 132 Cong. Rec. E1983-01 (daily ed. June 5, 1986) (statement of Rep. Siljander during extension of remarks)). During later congressional proceedings, one of the congressional representatives who introduced the bill stated “[f]or purposes of [section 2255], violations are to be determined by a preponderance of the evidence. Successful plaintiffs are entitled to recover the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, from those found guilty of a violation.” 132 Cong. Rec. E3242-02 (daily ed. September 23, 1986) (statement of Rep. Green during extension of remarks) (emphasis added); see id. Based on this legislative history, the Smith court concluded that Congress’ intent was “to make the civil remedies provision available to any victim able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the acts described in any of the listed offenses.” Id. at 613 (emphasis added). This Court concludes that, based upon Smith and the legislative history of section 2255, in order to be subject to liability under section 2255, a defendant must be proven to have violated at least one of the criminal statutes listed in section 2255 by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, there is sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that such violations occurred, as Plaintiff has offered evidence that Liberatore knowingly transported Plaintiff, while a minor, to New York and Europe, in interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent of engaging in illegal sexual activity with Plaintiff, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421, 2422 and 2423. However, the Diocesan Defendants argue that they did not take part in Liberatore’s criminal activities. As such, they contend they cannot be liable under section 2255. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2(a), “[wjhoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission is punishable as a principal” (emphasis added). As such, one who criminally aids or abets a listed offense is punishable as though he himself committed the offense. United States v. Private Sanitation Industry Association of Nassau/Suffolk, Inc., 793 F.Supp. 1114, 1134 (E.D.N.Y.1992). Consequently, if one has aided or abetted another in violating one of the statutes listed in section 2255, then he himself has committed an act indictable under that listed statute. As the aider or abettor has himself committed an indictable act, he is liable to the plaintiff under section 2255. See 132 Cong. Rec. E1983-01 (daily ed. June 5, 1986) (statement of Rep. Siljander during extension of remarks). Accordingly, if the Diocesan Defendants criminally aided or abetted Liberatore in the commission of his sexual offenses, they may be held liable under section 2255. In order to establish the offense of criminal aiding and abetting, it must be shown that: (1) the substantive offense has been committed; (2) the defendant knew the offense was being committed; and (3) the defendant acted with the intent to facilitate it. United States v. Cartwright, 359 F.3d 281, 287 (3d Cir.2004) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Newman, 490 F.2d 139, 143 (3d Cir.1974) (in order to be liable as an aider or abettor, the defendant must have participated in the substantive crime with the desire that the crime be accomplished; unknowing participation is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the aiding and abetting statute). “[Ajcting with intent to facilitate the substantive offense requires that one acted with the ‘intent to help those involved with a certain crime.’ ” United States v. Salmon, 944 F.2d 1106, 1113 (3d Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Wexler, 838 F.2d 88, 92 (3d Cir.1988)). Indeed, “[tjhe state of mind required for conviction as an aider and abettor is the same state of mind as required for the principal offense.” United States v. Centner, 116 F.3d 473 (Table), 1997 WL 328766, at *2 (4th Cir.1997); United States v. Loder, 23 F.3d 586, 591 (1st Cir.1994); United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671, 680 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Gallishaw, 428 F.2d 760 (2d Cir.1970). As noted, there is sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that multiple listed offenses were committed by Liberatore. As such, the first element of criminal aiding and abetting is satisfied. However, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes that no reasonable jury could find that the second and third elements of the aiding and abetting offense are satisfied. While Plaintiffs evidence demonstrates that the Diocesan Defendants had reason to suspect that Liber-atore was sexually abusing Plaintiff, there is nothing in the record demonstrating that the Diocesan Defendants consciously shared Liberatore’s knowledge of the underlying substantive offenses, as well as the specific criminal intent to commit them. See Loder, 23 F.3d at 591. Indeed, “[a] general suspicion that an unlawful act may occur is not enough.” United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 23 (2d Cir.1990). While it is possible to infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and indifference to the truth, see United States v. Talkington, 875 F.2d 591, 595 (7th Cir. 1989) (upholding district court’s use of the so-called “ostrich instruction,” which allows the inference of knowledge if it is found that the putative aider or abettor had a strong suspicion yet shut his eyes for fear of what he would learn), there still remains no evidence even remotely suggesting that the Diocesan Defendants shared Liberatore’s specific intent to commit the sexual offenses. While the Diocesan Defendants may have avoided learning of Liberatore’s offenses, there is no evidence that the Diocesan Defendants desired that his crimes be accomplished. Also absent from the record is any evidence showing that the Diocesan Defendants actively participated in some manner to assist Liberatore in the commission of his offenses. As such, the Diocesan Defendants’ motion for summary judgement will be granted as to Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint. II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), “the district court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all of the claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that include joinder or intervention of additional parties.” Thus, section 1367(a) provides for pendent-party jurisdiction in federal question cases. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) (“[t]he last sentence of § 1367(a) makes it clear that the grant of supplemental jurisdiction extends to claims involving joinder or intervention of additional parties”). Consequently, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims against the Diocesan Defendants and Brother Antonucci so long as these claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with Plaintiffs federal law claim against Liberatore such that Plaintiff “would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). Under Third Circuit jurisprudence, “mere tangential overlap of facts is insufficient [to constitute a common nucleus of operative fact], but total congruity between the operative facts ... is unnecessary.” Nanavati v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital, 857 F.2d 96, 105 (3d Cir.1988). Plaintiffs state law claims against the Diocesan Defendants and Brother An-tonucci satisfy this standard. Plaintiffs federal claim against Libera-tore arose from sexual abuse that was perpetrated by Liberatore while he was a priest within the Diocese. Plaintiffs state claims against the Diocesan Defendants and Brother Antonucci' are based on these same facts, with the caveat that Plaintiffs state claims require proof of additional facts beyond merely Liberatore’s acts of abuse. Thus, while not totally congruous, Plaintiffs federal and state claims share more than a mere tangential overlap. As such, Plaintiffs state law claims against the Diocesan Defendants and Brother An-tonucci share a common nucleus of operative fact with his federal law claims against Liberatore. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over all of Plaintiffs federal and state claims. The Court will now address Plaintiffs state law claims against the Diocesan Defendants and Brother Antonucci. III. Plaintiffs State Law Claims against the Diocesan Defendants and Brother Antonucci (Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII) A. Vicarious Liability (Count III) In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin are vicariously liable for Liberatore’s sexual molestation of Plaintiff, and that these acts were performed during the course of and within the scope of Liberatore’s employment as a priest. The Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin now move for summary judgment as to this count, arguing that Liberatore’s acts were committed outside the scope of his employment. Under Pennsylvania law, “an employer is held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his employee which cause injuries to a third party, provided that such acts were committed during the course of and within the scope. of the employment.” Fitzgerald v. McCutcheon, 270 Pa.Super. 102, 410 A.2d 1270, 1271 (1979). “In certain circumstances, liability of the employer may also extend to intentional or criminal acts committed by the employee.” Id. “The conduct of an employee is considered ‘within the scope of employment’ for purposes of vicarious liability if: (1) it is of a kind and nature that the employee is employed to perform; (2) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; (3) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer; and (4) if force is intentionally used by the employee against another, the use of force is not unexpected by the employer.” R.A. ex rel. N.A v. First Church of Christ, 748 A.2d 692, 699 (Pa.Super.2000). “Where, however, the employee commits an act encompassing the use of force which is excessive and so dangerous as to be totally without responsibility or reason, the employer is not responsible as a matter of law.” Fitzgerald, 410 A.2d at 1272. Indeed, “a master is not liable for the willful misconduct of his servant, and that such willful misconduct, while it may be within the course of the employment, is not within the scope thereof.” McMaster v. Reale, 177 Pa.Super. 429, 110 A.2d 831, 832 (1955). In addition, Pennsylvania courts have held that “an assault committed by an employee upon another for personal reasons or in an outrageous manner is not actuated by an intent to perform the business of the employer and, as such, is not within the scope of employment.” Fitzgerald, 410 A.2d at 1272. For example, in Sanchez by Rivera v. Montanez, 165 Pa. Cmwlth. 381, 645 A.2d 383 (1994), a child and his parents sued a community action agency, alleging that the agency was vicariously liable for an employee’s sexual molestation of the plaintiff child. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in the defendant agency’s favor, holding that the employee’s actions were clearly outrageous and motivated purely by personal reasons. Id. at 391, 645 A.2d 383. Here, it is clear that Liberatore’s sexual molestation of Plaintiff was not within the scope or nature of his employment as a priest. Indeed, “[t]he activity of which [Plaintiff] now complains is wholly inconsistent with the role of one who is received into the Holy Orders as an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church.” Hutchison by Hutchison v. Luddy, 453 Pa.Super. 420, 683 A.2d 1254, 1256 (1996). Moreover, the acts of sexual abuse perpetrated by Liberatore were both outrageous and certainly not actuated by any purpose of serving the Diocese, Sacred Heart or Bishop Timlin. As such, no reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiff on his vicarious liability claim. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin as to Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint. B. Aiding and Abetting (Count IV) In Count IV, Plaintiff sets forth a claim against Brother Antonucci for tor-tiously aiding and abetting Liberatore in his sexual abuse of Plaintiff. Under this theory of liability, based upon section 876 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, “one is subject to liability for harm to a third person arising from the tortious conduct of another if he (a) does a tortious act in concert with the other or pursuant to a common design with him; (b) knows that the other’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself; or (c) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and his own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person.” Koken v. Steinberg, 825 A.2d 723, 731 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). Plaintiff neither avers, nor has presented evidence, that Brother Antonucci acted with Liberatore in a common scheme or plan. Subsection (a) is thus inapplicable. To determine whether Brother Antonucci provided “substantial assistance” to Liberatore, the comments to section 876 of the Restatement provide a list of five factors: (1) the nature of the act encouraged; (2) the amount of assistance given by the defendant; (3) the defendant’s presence or absence at the time of the tort; (4) the defendant’s relation to the tortfeasor; and (5) the defendant’s state of mind. Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dep't, 174 F.3d 95, 127 n. 27 (3d Cir.1999). A sixth factor — the duration of the assistance provided — is also considered. Id. (citing Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 484 (D.C.Cir.1983). Here, Plaintiff has failed to offer sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Brother Antonucci gave substantial assistance or encouragement to Liberatore. Plaintiff has offered evidence that Brother Antonucci dissuaded Plaintiff and his mother from reporting Liberatore’s abuse to the authorities, instead suggesting that Plaintiff forgive Li-beratore for his misdeeds. Under Pennsylvania case law, “substantial assistance” requires that the putative aider or abetter take some affirmative action which causes the tortious actor to conduct himself inappropriately. Welc v. Porter, 450 Pa.Super. 112, 675 A.2d 334, 338-39 (1996) (holding that the plaintiff, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident with a drunk driver, could not recover from the drunk driver’s passenger, as an aider or abetter under section 876(b) of the Restatement, because the plaintiff did not aver that the passenger “engaged in any conduct that substantially assisted or encouraged [the driver] to consume alcohol and operate his vehicle in a negligent or reckless manner”); see Cruz v. Roberts, No. CI-04-01947, 2005 WL 1349615, at *235-36 (Pa.Com.Pl. Jan. 26, 2005) (Plaintiffs complaint, arising out of allegations of child sexual abuse by employee of day care center, failed to state claim against the day care center and its owners for tortious aiding and abetting because it “fail[ed] to contain any allegations that the defendants affirmatively acted in any way to assist [the employee] in committing his alleged misdeeds”). Here, there is simply no evidence that Brother Antonucci aided the efforts of Li-beratore or encouraged or incited him to commit his abusive acts. There is no evidence that Brother Antonucci was present during the commission of the abuse. Moreover, despite Brother Antonucci’s advice, Plaintiff and his mother were entirely free to ignore him and contact the authorities on their own accord. As such, Brother Antonucci’s efforts to dissuade Plaintiff and his mother from contacting the authorities cannot be viewed as “substantial assistance.” Accordingly, the Court will grant Brother Antonucci’s motion for summary judgment as to Count IV of Plaintiffs Complaint. C. Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention (Count V) Plaintiff next claims that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin are liable for negligence in their hiring, supervision and retention of Liberatore as a Diocesan priest. Under Pennsylvania law, an employer is subject to liability for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless “in the employment of improper persons or instrumentalities in work involving risk of harm to others; ... in the supervision of the activity; or ... in permitting, or failing to prevent, negligent or other tortious conduct by persons, whether or not his servants or agents, upon premises or with instrumentalities under his control.” R.A. ex rel. N.A., 748 A.2d at 697 (citing Restatement (SeCond) of Agenoy § 213(b), (d) (1958)). Moreover, a master has a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his servant while acting outside the scope of his employment as to prevent him from intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if (a) the servant is upon the premises in possession of the master or upon which the servant is privileged to enter only as his servant, or is using a chattel of the master, and (b) the master knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his servant, and knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. R.A. ex rel. N.A., 748 A.2d at 697 (citing Restatement (Seoond) of ToRts § 317(a), (b) (1965)). Accordingly, an employer owes a duty “to exercise reasonable care in selecting, supervising and controlling employees.” Id. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that, “[t]o fasten liability on an employer[,] ... it must be shown that the employer knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of the necessity for exercising control of his employee.” Dempsey v. Walso Bureau, Inc., 431 Pa. 562, 246 A.2d 418, 422 (1968) (stating that, in a case in which an employee committed an assault, the employer may be liable for the failure to exercise reasonable care in determining the employee’s propensity for violence). In the instant case, the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin may be liable if they knew or should have known that Li-beratore had a propensity for committing sexual abuse and his employment as Pastor at Sacred Heart might create a situation where his propensity would harm a third person, such as Plaintiff. See Coath v. Jones, 277 Pa.Super. 479, 419 A.2d 1249, 1250-52 (1980) (holding, in a case in which a former employee of the defendant-employer raped the plaintiff after having gained entry to her home by representing that he was there on the defendant’s business, first, that the defendant could be found liable if the perpetrator was known to have the inclination to assault women or if the defendant should have known that, and, second, that “if it were foreseeable by the defendant that [the perpetrator]” ... could attack a customer because he had, on a previous occasion, been admitted to her home on the employer’s business, then there would exist a special relationship between defendant and the customer and a duty on the employer to give a reasonable warning to the customer). When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could conclude that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin were negligent or reckless in supervising and retaining Liberatore. However, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could not find that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin were negligent or reckless in hiring Liberatore because there is no evidence suggesting that Liberatore was or would become a child sex predator when he was hired in 1995. As noted above, under Section 213(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency, a principal is liable for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless in the employment of improper persons in work involving risk of harm to others. Restatement (Second) Of Agency § 213(b). Additionally, under Section 213(d) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency, a principal is liable for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless in permitting, or failing to prevent, negligent or other tortious conduct by persons upon his premises. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213(d). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin were negligent or reckless in retaining Liberatore because the jury could conclude that Liberatore was an improper person who posed a risk of sexual abuse to minor males. A reasonable jury could also find that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin were negligent or reckless in permitting, or failing to prevent, negligent or other tortious conduct by persons on church premises based on Liberatore’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff in the Sacred Heart Rectory. There is evidence that Bishop Timlin was informed that Plaintiff was sleeping in Liberatore’s bedroom at the Rectory and that Liberatore had taken Plaintiff on several overnight trips (O’Neill Letter). Bishop Timlin acknowledged that he would characterize such activity as grooming behavior. (Timlin Dep. 36:8-37:9.) Bishop Timlin was informed of Liberatore’s inappropriate behavior with Roe and Poe. (Bohr Dep. 42:8-43:11; Summary at 2.) Shortly thereafter, Bishop Timlin removed Liberatore from the Seminary. However, rather than dismiss Liberatore as a Diocesan priest, Bishop Timlin assigned him to another parish within the Diocese. Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that this provided Liberatore the opportunity to befriend Plaintiff and then sexually abuse him. Further, the awareness of the potential Liberatore posed as a pedophile raises the question of the relevance of the Diocese’s and Bishop Timlin’s awareness of Libera-tore’s behavior with Roe. The Court finds it relevant for the following reasons. A Roman Catholic priest takes a vow of celibacy at his ordination and, therefore, is called to refrain from any and all sexual activity. Wikipedia, supra, “Clerical Celibacy”, http://en.wikipedia.org'wiki/ Celibacy#Clerical_celibacy. While any sexual act outside the sacrament of marriage is forbidden by the Church, Wikipedia, supra, “Roman Catholic Church”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_ Catholic_Church#Sexuality, homosexual acts are considered to be “intrinsically immoral” and “contrary to the natural law.” Wikipedia, supra, “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_ Concerning_the_Criteria_for_the_ Discernment_of_Vocations_with_regard_ to_Persons_with_Homosexual_ Tendencies_in_view_of_their_Admission_ to_the_Seminary_and_to_Holy_Orders. Indeed, the Church forbids the ordination of men to the priesthood who have “deeply rooted homosexual tendencies.” Wikipedia, supra, “List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality”, http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_ denominationaLpositions on_ homosexuality#Roman_Catholic_Church. Nevertheless, in general, homosexual behavior between consenting adults does not violate the rules of civil society. It does not follow that a homosexual is more likely than a heterosexual to prey on minors of the same sex. As such, standing alone, Liberatore’s homosexual behavior with regard to Roe, an adult, would be irrelevant as to the issue of whether the Diocesan Defendants had notice that Li-beratore had a propensity to sexually abuse a minor male. However, Libera-tore’s behavior with regard to Roe becomes relevant, as to the issue of notice to the Diocesan Defendants, by virtue of the fact that it was strikingly similar to that which he later engaged in with regard to Plaintiff. Liberatore was in Roe’s company a great deal, bought Roe expensive gifts, took Roe on overnight trips and had Roe sleep in his room at the Seminary. This behavior was noticed by colleagues, who, in turn, made their observations and concerns known to the Diocesan Defendants. While at Sacred Heart, Liberatore counseled Plaintiff regarding the death of his father, hired Plaintiff as a sacristan, was in Plaintiffs company an inordinate amount of time, purchased expensive gifts for Plaintiff, took Plaintiff on overnight trips and had Plaintiff sleep in his room at the Rectory. Like his relationship with Roe, Liberatore’s relationship with Plaintiff drew comment from people who were in a position to view, on a daily basis, much of what occurred between them. These people, in turn, informed the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin of their observations and concerns. Accordingly, Liberatore’s homosexual behavior with regard to Roe is legally relevant as to the issue of whether the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin had notice that Liberatore was, at the very least, grooming Plaintiff for a homosexual relationship, if not already involving him in one. However, even ignoring Liberatore’s relationship with Roe, a reasonable jury could conclude that there was adequate warning to the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin that Liberatore was grooming Plaintiff for a homosexual relationship, and that it may well have already begun. The notice of Plaintiffs sleepovers in the Rectory, the gifts given to Plaintiff and the overnight trips is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin were negligent or reckless in retaining Liberatore as a Diocesan priest. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could also conclude that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin were negligent or reckless in permitting, or failing to prevent, Liberatore’s tortious conduct upon church premises, given Plaintiffs statement that Liberatore routinely sexually abused him while they slept in Libera-tore’s bedroom in the Sacred Heart Rectory. Further, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin are not liable under Section 317 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, as a reasonable jury could conclude that these defendants knew of the necessity and had the opportunity and ability to control Liberatore’s actions, but nevertheless failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent Liberatore, acting outside the scope of his employment, from intentionally harming Plaintiff while on church premises. Given the evidence of Bishop Timlin’s awareness of Liberatore’s relationship with Roe, Plaintiffs sleeping in Liberatore’s bedroom at the Rectory and the overnight trips on which Libera-tore had taken Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could conclude that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin had reason to believe that Liberatore was, at the very least, grooming this young man, if not already involving him in a sexual relationship. Consequently, Count V of Plaintiffs Complaint will survive summary judgment to the extent that Plaintiff claims that the Diocese, Sacred Heart and Bishop Timlin were negligent in supervising and retaining Liberatore. The Court will grant summary judgment as to Count Y of Plaintiffs Complaint to the extent that Plaintiff claims that Liberatore was negligently hired. D. Negligence Per Se (Count VI) In Count VI of his Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth a claim of negligence per se arising from Defendants’ alleged violation of the Child Protective Services Act, 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 6811. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Diocesan Defendants and Brother Antonucci failed to comply with the reporting requirements of section 6311. The Diocesan Defendants and Brother Antonucci now move this Court for summary judgment as to this count. The Diocesan Defendants argue that they never “came into contact” with Plaintiff and thus were not subject to section 6311. Brother Antonucci asserts that, because he was not employed by the Diocese as a priest, he too was not subject to the reporting requirement imposed by section 6311. Section 6311 provides, in pertinent part: Persons who, in th