04 October 2022

Sixth Circuit Green Lights Ohio State Title IX Case


Last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a Title IX action initiated by several individuals who claimed they were abused by a physician at the Ohio State University between 1978 and 1998.  Although the University claimed that the claims fell well beyond the statute of limitations, the Plaintiffs countered that they could not have known the University injured them until 2018, when knowledge of the abuse became public.  In a 30-page majority decision that delved into legal minutiae, there are a few important takeaways for school officials to understand.

First, there was no dispute that the alleged physical abuse of young men by the University doctor occurred between 1978 and 1998.  Since state law determines how long a person has to file a Title IX claim, and Ohio only allows two years, the filing of this action was well outside the two-year window.  Nevertheless, the court reasoned that Title IX pertains to an institution, not merely an individual, causing injury.  Because Ohio State allegedly actively concealed the physician’s abuse, and knowledge of the University’s alleged actions did not become known until 2018, the court determined that the two‑year window to file suit did not begin until 2018.  This is because the Plaintiffs, in theory, could not have reasonably known until then that the University injured them, even if they had tried to investigate further when they were abused.  As a result, public educational institutions that have allegedly suppressed Title IX violations may find themselves open to exposure, even if the alleged violations occurred decades ago.

Second, some of the Plaintiffs were neither students nor employees.  Still, the court allowed their claims to proceed.  According to the court, a non‑student, non‑employee may bring a Title IX claim if they were discriminated against while participating, or at least attempting to participate, in the education program or activity.  Such individuals may, for example, be accessing school libraries, computer labs, and vocational resources, or attending campus tours, public lectures, sporting events, and other activities at educational institutions.  In some cases, they need be neither students nor employees to have access.  In sum, Title IX claims are not limited to students and employees, but are decided based on whether the individual was attempting to access an educational program or activity.

In theory, these two developments could significantly expand exposure for public educational entities in states covered by the Sixth Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee).  However, the decision was split 2-1, and an appeal is possible.  In the meantime, school administrators should ensure they continue to treat all Title IX claims seriously, regardless of when they occurred, or who is raising the claim.

Questions?  Contact the Miller Johnson’s Education team if you have any questions about this case.