Fact Sheet

Summary 

  • The reprehensible abuse by Richard Strauss at Ohio State occurred decades ago between 1978 and 1998. Strauss died in 2005.
  • When the university received a single complaint in 2018, we took immediate action, launching an external, independent investigation, which found that at least 177 male students were sexually abused and the university at the time had failed to act meaningfully.
  • Ohio State has repeatedly condemned Strauss’ abuse, apologized to survivors, and worked to reach a resolution. We have paid more than $60 million to settle with 296 people through a trauma-informed approach that did not require survivors to prove they were harmed through any litigation process such as discovery or depositions. The remaining plaintiffs who were male students rejected monetary offers and continue to pursue their legal claims.
  • The university’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court does not diminish Ohio State’s commitment to supporting survivors, discovering and sharing the facts, and continuing its work to change the culture of the past – and prevent abuse in the future – as Ohio State has done over the past 25 years. It addresses a purely legal question in asking the Court to preserve the core missions of the statute of limitations and Title IX, which are important to nearly all educational institutions – not just Ohio State.
  • The petition stems from an unprecedented ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that erodes the statute of limitations to allow claims that are decades old to move forward, and expands Title IX to anyone who steps foot on a campus – even the 100,000 visitors to a football stadium on game day.
  • As stated in Ohio State’s petition to the Supreme Court: “If left to stand, educational institutions in the U.S. Sixth Circuit will face the virtually impossible task of defending against decades-old claims where key witnesses and documents may have perished and the only remaining evidence is the plaintiff’s say-so. No matter the urge to address past wrongs, no system of true justice can operate on such unfair terms.”

Details

What is the petition?

Ohio State is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that would upend legal precedents regarding both statutes of limitations and the scope of Title IX. 

  • The petition concerns lawsuits by survivors of sexual abuse who argue they should be allowed to sue Ohio State even though their injuries occurred more than 20 to 40 years ago — far beyond Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations for Title IX cases.
  • The Sixth Circuit decision expanded federal law to allow these lawsuits to move forward by changing the starting point for the statute of limitations in Title IX cases. The starting point could now extend indefinitely.
  • This decision also extended Title IX protections to non-students visiting campus, including members of the public using campus facilities or attending sporting events.

Ohio State’s petition is focused on the unprecedented Sixth Circuit ruling and does not challenge survivors’ accounts of sexual abuse.

Why is it important?

This erosion of the statute of limitations and broadening of Title IX would expand liability and the potential for lawsuits from decades ago against all universities that accept federal funds. The inevitable increase in costs associated with litigating Title IX claims from decades ago could divert funds allocated for educational programs and activities, ultimately harming students themselves.

What’s the context and connection to Strauss?

The plaintiffs are survivors of sexual abuse by Richard Strauss, a university physician from 1978 to 1998 who treated students, including student-athletes. Strauss died in 2005.

When the university decades later learned of a complaint about Strauss in 2018, Ohio State immediately commissioned an independent investigation. At that time, plaintiffs also began filing lawsuits against Ohio State. More than half of the plaintiffs have settled their claims. If the Supreme Court rules for Ohio State, the remaining lawsuits against the university would be dismissed. If the Court does not take the case or rules against the university, the suits would go back to the trial court.

Since 2018 Ohio State has:

  • Led efforts to expose Strauss’ abuse and Ohio State’s failure at the time to prevent it.
  • Condemned Strauss, apologized to survivors and praised their strength in coming forward.
  • Covered the cost of third-party counseling and treatment — which will continue as long as needed, regardless of the outcome of this case.
  • Provided survivors multiple opportunities to share their experiences with university leadership and the Board of Trustees.
  • Established a task force on sexual abuse, which included national and Ohio State experts who partnered with survivors of sexual abuse, including a Strauss survivor.
  • Took special action to revoke Strauss’ emeritus status.
  • Provided more than $60 million in monetary compensation to 296 survivors.
  • Continued, separate and apart from its response to Strauss, a more than two-decade record of enhancing and investing millions of dollars to protect students, faculty, and staff from abuse. (A comprehensive list of initiatives over the past 25 years is available.)

Ohio State is committed to continuing its larger efforts to support survivors and prevent sexual abuse. As part of this effort, the university is developing a new forum to allow individuals who have already settled to engage in further dialogue with Ohio State officials.

Have plaintiffs had the opportunity to settle out of court?

  • Even though the statute of limitations has long expired, Ohio State has provided multiple opportunities for plaintiffs to receive settlements.
  • The university has paid more than $60 million to settle with 296 people through a trauma-informed approach that did not require survivors to prove they were harmed through any litigation process such as discovery or depositions.
  • Every male student in this case has been offered multiple opportunities to settle.
  • Plaintiffs who were male in the current lawsuits have declined to settle.