Does v. The Ohio State Univ.

• Decision Date: 16 December 2022
• Docket Number: 21-4109
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
• Parties: JOHN DOES 174, 176, 182 &183; JANE DOE 1, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee,

JOHN DOES 174, 176, 182 &183; JANE DOE 1, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee,

No. 21-4109

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

December 16, 2022

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: CLAY, GIBBONS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Between 1978 and 1998, Dr. Richard Strauss, a university physician and athletic team doctor at the Ohio State University, allegedly sexually abused hundreds of individuals under the guise of performing medical examinations. The allegations did not become public until 2018, following Ohio State's commissioning of an independent investigation undertaken by the law firm Perkins Coie, which substantiated the allegations of abuse. After the allegations became public, survivors of this abuse-including Plaintiffs in this case-brought Title IX suits against Ohio State, alleging that Ohio State was deliberately indifferent to their heightened risk of abuse and that Ohio State actually concealed the abuse. The district court found that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed the action. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

1

Around the same time that the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims, the district court also dismissed claims brought by other alleged survivors of Strauss' abuse. See Garrett v. Ohio State Univ., 561 F.Supp.3d 747 (S.D. Ohio 2021); Ratliff v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:19-cv-4746, 2021 WL 7186198 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2021); Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:18-cv-736, 2021 WL 7186148 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2021); Moxley v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:21-cv-3838, 2021 WL 7186269 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2021). The district court reasoned that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the abuse happened more than two years ago, and the plaintiffs knew or had reason to know that they were injured at the time that the abuse occurred. See Garrett, 561 F.Supp.3d at 754-62; Snyder-Hill, 2021 WL 7186148, at *1; Moxley, 2021 WL...