Skip to content 
Image: WWE World Headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut, by AbhiSuryawanshi – Own work, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
A federal judge has rejected an attempt by WWE, Vince McMahon and U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to dismiss a lawsuit brought by former teenage workers who allege they were sexually abused while working for the wrestling organization decades ago, Linda Jacobson, senior writer at The74Million.org reports.
On October 19, U.S. District Judge James Bredar ruled that Maryland’s Child Victims Act of 2023, which allows survivors to pursue certain childhood sexual abuse claims regardless of how long ago the alleged abuse occurred, does not violate the U.S. Constitution as applied to the case.
The decision allows the surviving claims to move forward, potentially opening the door to depositions and the exchange of evidence concerning what WWE executives knew about the alleged misconduct.
The defendants had argued that allowing lawsuits over incidents from the 1980s and 1990s would violate their constitutional right to due process because witnesses have died, memories have faded and evidence may no longer be available.
Bredar rejected that argument, finding that the passage of time did not automatically prevent the defendants from receiving a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
Former WWE Ring Boys Allege Years of Sexual Abuse
The lawsuit was originally filed in October 2024 by eight men who worked as so-called “ring boys” for what was then known as the World Wrestling Federation (WWF).
Ring boys performed various jobs at wrestling events, including setting up equipment, running errands and assisting event personnel. Many were teenagers when they began working for the organization.
The former workers allege that ring announcer Mel Phillips sexually abused them while they were minors. Other allegations involve former company officials Pat Patterson and Terry Garvin.
All three men have since died.
According to the complaint, WWE leadership knew or should have known that children working at company events were at risk of sexual abuse but failed to take appropriate steps to protect them.
The lawsuit points to statements Vince McMahon reportedly made in 1992 acknowledging concerns about Phillips’ interest in boys. Phillips was fired in 1988 but subsequently rehired, according to the allegations.
The plaintiffs contend that the company’s handling of those concerns allowed the alleged misconduct to continue.
Following an earlier court ruling that narrowed the litigation, seven plaintiffs remain. Claims involving two of those men are proceeding against Linda McMahon, while claims against Vince McMahon, WWE and its parent company, TKO Group Holdings, remain pending on behalf of all seven.
The defendants dispute the allegations.
Maryland’s Child Victims Act Survives Constitutional Challenge
The legal dispute has implications beyond WWE.
Maryland enacted its Child Victims Act in 2023 to remove the statute of limitations for certain civil claims involving childhood sexual abuse. The change allows adults to pursue lawsuits over alleged abuse that occurred decades earlier, including claims against institutions accused of failing to protect children.
Previously, many survivors were prevented from filing lawsuits because the legal deadline had expired before they came forward.
WWE and the McMahons challenged the law, arguing that reviving old claims would deprive defendants of a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and challenge accusations.
But Bredar concluded that the plaintiffs had identified potential evidence that remained available despite the passage of time.
That includes testimony from people with knowledge of WWE’s operations and statements made by company officials in previous proceedings.
The judge also recognized a central reason states have reconsidered filing deadlines for childhood sexual abuse: Survivors may need years, sometimes decades, before they’re ready to disclose what happened or pursue legal action.
The ruling doesn’t establish that WWE or the McMahons are responsible for the alleged abuse. Rather, it allows the case to continue under a law designed to give survivors an opportunity to have older claims heard.
Linda McMahon’s Role as Education Secretary Draws Attention
The lawsuit presents an unusual situation for Linda McMahon, who helped lead WWE for nearly three decades before becoming U.S. Secretary of Education.
Her department is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights protections in education, including requirements addressing sexual harassment and sexual violence.
In July 2026, the Department of Education announced investigations into 20 school districts over concerns about how they handled allegations of sexual misconduct involving school employees.
Additional investigations were announced in October.
Meanwhile, McMahon faces allegations that she failed to protect minors working for WWE during her years as a company executive.
During her Senate confirmation hearing in 2025, lawmakers questioned whether the lawsuit would affect survivors’ confidence in her leadership.
McMahon pledged to ensure that sexual misconduct investigations would be handled fairly.
Her representatives have strongly denied the WWE allegations, describing the claims as false and misleading.
The lawsuit is separate from her current duties at the Education Department.
What Happens Next?
The case can now proceed toward discovery, when the parties may seek company records, question witnesses under oath and examine what WWE officials knew about the alleged misconduct.
A court scheduling conference is expected in November.
The surviving plaintiffs are seeking financial damages based on allegations of negligence and failures involving the hiring, retention and supervision of personnel.
No trial date has been set, and the parties could potentially reach a settlement before the case goes to trial.
For survivors of childhood sexual abuse, the ruling illustrates the significance of laws that extend or eliminate filing deadlines. Even when alleged misconduct occurred decades earlier, legal changes may create opportunities to pursue claims against individuals and institutions that were previously beyond the reach of civil litigation.
Whether a similar claim can proceed depends on the applicable state’s laws, the circumstances of the abuse and the evidence available.
RELATED:
