Editor's Note: Details of this case may be triggering to some readers
While sports can foster positive relationships between youths and the adults that sports organizations entrust to positions of authority, sexual assault of minor athletes by coaches, trainers and administrators is a serious problem.
To protect minor athletes and others from adults in positions of authority, the United States Center for SafeSport created the Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies (MAAPP). To comply with the policies of SafeSport, national governing bodies (NGBs), local affiliated organizations (LAOs), and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) must implement the MAAPP. The policies, which aim to protect children while encouraging positive adult-child relationships, cover common sports situations, such as travel, individual training sessions and electronic communications.
The fact remains, however, that even with the implementation of SafeSport policies, minor athletes are still being sexually abused by coaches and others in positions of authority and trust. When cases involving minor sexual abuse are discovered, SafeSport policies require the local organization or club to report the issue to the police and NGB. Even when the police file criminal charges, athletes and their families also have the option of filing civil lawsuits.
A good case to illustrate the legal issues involved in athlete abuse and the duty governing bodies and clubs owe minor athletes for crimes committed by independently hired coaches, is Jane Doe v. United States Figure Skating Association, Eden Prairie Figure Skating Club, Braemar-City of Lakes Figure Skating Club, Thomas Incantalupo 27-CV-23-8875 (2025).
Misplaced trust
In 2011, around the time of her 10th birthday, Jane Doe began taking skating lessons with Thomas Incantalupo at the Eden Prairie (Minn.) Figure Skating Club and Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club in Edina, Minn. Incantalupo was not an employee of either club, but rather an independent contractor who was hired and paid directly by Doe’s parents. Doe’s parents felt comfortable selecting Incantalupo because he was a certified United States Figure Skating Association (USFSA) coach who they believed was not only a highly qualified instructor, but also someone who they could trust to protect Doe’s emotional, physical and spiritual wellbeing.
Two years after he started coaching Doe, Incantalupo began to sexually groom Doe and take her on out-of-state trips without other adults present. Incantalupo convinced Doe’s parents that the amount of one-on-one time between Doe and Incantalupo was safe and normal in the coaching relationship.
Four years into that relationship, during the summer of 2015, Incantalupo began sexually assaulting Doe on a regular basis. While the sexual abuse typically occurred on out-of-state trips, Incantalupo also would pick Doe up from school, supposedly for practice, and take her to a local hotel to assault her, before dropping her back at the rink in time for her parents to pick her up. During the entire time Incantalupo was sexually assaulting Doe, she was a minor and legally unable to consent to any sexual acts.
In January 2018, Doe finally disclosed Incantalupo’s sexual abuse to a friend, triggering a criminal investigation. Incantalupo was arrested after police heard him acknowledge the hotel visits. He pleaded guilty to sexual acts with a minor and was sentenced to 24 years in prison. In addition to the criminal charges, Doe filed a civil lawsuit against Incantalupo for sexual assault and sexual battery.
Doe also filed claims of negligence against the three skating institutions: the USFSA, the Eden Prairie Figure Skating Club and the Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club. In her lawsuit, Doe alleged that the organizations had a duty to protect her from Incantalupo, but failed their duty when they failed to supervise the coach, enforce SafeSport guidelines and warn families about the risk Incantalupo posed to minors. Doe also argued that the organizations should have been aware of earlier grooming red flags and that by assigning or permitting him to coach, they represented to the community that he was safe and trustworthy.
USFSA membership
In her lawsuit against the USFSA and the skating clubs, Doe’s attorneys pointed out that the USFSA is the NGB of figure skating in the United States. As an NGB, USFSA adopted a membership program whereby coaches and skaters are required to register with USFSA to compete in USFSA-sanctioned events. In addition, attorneys noted that every member of USFSA, including coaches and skaters, is required to undergo training from USFSA and abide by USFSA rules.
Since the USFSA has acknowledged that its members, especially young adults and minors, are susceptible to sexual abuse given the power disparity between coach and skaters, one of the policies implemented by the USFSA was “Two-Deep Leadership,” which was adopted to prevent one-on-one interactions between minors and coaches or other adults in a position of power. The USFSA also had a two-tiered reporting policy, which required a report to be made to law enforcement as well as to the USFSA whenever sexual abuse or harassment was observed or suspected. All adult members of USFSA, including coaches, are required to make mandatory reports of suspected abuse or harassment. If anyone is found to have violated the policy, the USFSA has the power to admonish, suspend or even permanently ban members.
In support of her argument that the USFSA and the clubs violated their policies, Doe claimed that prior to Incantalupo ever coaching Doe, he was suspected of engaging in inappropriate conduct with a minor student while coaching at the St. Paul Figure Skating Club. However, instead of reporting the allegations, which would have triggered an investigation by the USFSA and police, Incantalupo was merely barred from the St. Paul Figure Skating Club. If the club had reported the allegations, the USFSA would have removed him as a member and prevented him from coaching at any member clubs. Instead, Incantalupo simply moved to the other skating clubs, allowing him to begin coaching and grooming Doe.
In seeking to have the lawsuit against it dismissed, the USFSA emphasized that it imposes several stipulations on coaches who wish to maintain membership, which is required by all coaches in USFSA-sanctioned activities or events. In particular, the USFSA noted that coaches must pass background checks, complete yearly continuing education requirements and provide proof of liability insurance. Coaches must also receive regular training on the USFSA’s “SafeSport” program, which was created to prevent or reduce misconduct, including child sexual abuse.
The USFSA requires all member clubs to participate in SafeSport. As part of its SafeSport program, the USFSA tracks complaints about coaches and maintains a list of banned coaches. As a member, Incantalupo was subject to all these requirements and until the sexual abuse against Doe became known, he had passed all background checks and completed all required training, including SafeSport training.
Meanwhile, the clubs, in seeking to have the claims against them dismissed, argued that they were independent organizations that simply rented ice to Incantalupo. They argued that there was no employment relationship between them and Incantalupo. They did not hire, supervise or assign coaches to skaters, had no role in their coaching, nor did the clubs arrange any trips. In addition, the clubs argued that they had no evidence of complaints about Incantalupo before his arrest and therefore had no duty to protect Doe. Since Incantalupo was an independent contractor and Doe’s parents, not the clubs, selected and paid him directly, the clubs argued that they were not responsible for Incantalupo’s actions.
Special relationship absent
Accepting the arguments of the USFSA and the clubs, the judge found that the organizations did not owe a legal duty of care to Doe. In support of this finding, the court held that Minnesota law imposes no duty of care to protect others from third-party harm absent a special relationship, and no such special relationship existed between Doe and the skating organizations. The clubs had no employment relationship with Incantalupo and merely rented out ice.
For a special relationship to exist in this case, some amount of custody or responsibility must have been transferred to the clubs. While custody and responsibility were certainly transferred to Incantalupo, there was no evidence that it was shared with the clubs. There was no evidence that any staff from either club took responsibility for Doe from Incantalupo or Doe’s parents or had any ability to do so. The court also emphasized that every act of sexual abuse occurred during private or unchaperoned travel arranged outside the control of the organizations. None of the assaults took place on club premises or at events the organizations oversaw.
As a result, the court dismissed the claims against the USFSA and the skating clubs prior to trial. As the only defendant left, and having already confessed to sexually abusing Doe in his criminal case, it did not take the jury long to conclude that Incantalupo sexually abused Doe while in a position of authority. The jury awarded Doe $7.5 million for past damages, $2.5 million for future damages and another $2.5 million for punitive damages. Doe is considering appealing the decision against the USFSA and the clubs.
Thin ice?
It is important to note that the relationship between Incantalupo and the skating clubs in this case is not typical, as most coaches usually have some type of employment relationship with the facility they use. In such a scenario, the clubs would clearly have a legal duty of care to protect minor athletes. However, even in cases like Incantalupo’s, where he is considered an independent contractor and not an employee, facilities and governing bodies still have a legal duty of care. Whether that duty is simply putting policies in place against sexual abuse and educating members to ensure that those policies are followed — or something greater — is going to depend on the facts, the jurisdiction and the control the organization has over the parties involved.
Also, NGBs and other athletic administrators should note that while the USFSA had no duty of care to Doe under Minnesota law, that is not the law in all states. For example, in Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 11 Cal.5th 204 (2021), the California courts held that NGBs do owe their members a duty of care to protect against sexual abuse because the NGB in this case had a special relationship with the athletes based on its control over coach eligibility, certification and discipline.
