Statutes of Limitations

Statutes of limitations are a cornerstone of the rule of law.

Without statutes of limitations, old claims could be raised years after evidence has been lost, memories have faded and witnesses are gone. Additionally, institutions would not be able to make decisions about their actions, policies, liability and countless other activities without the certainty afforded by statutes of limitations.

Statutes of limitations allow for claims to be brought in a timely manner, and typically begin as soon as an injury occurs, ensuring that claims are filed promptly. For Title IX claims, in particular, the statute of limitations also is important because it requires timely notification to schools so that institutions have the necessary information to take immediate action to protect others.

Ohio State sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve the statute of limitations for Title IX claims.

Because Title IX does not contain its own statute of limitations, the two-year state statute of limitations for Ohio personal injury claims applies. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that statutes of limitation begin at the time of injury, not decades later, except for very limited circumstances that are not applicable in this case.

In this case, Richard Strauss committed reprehensible sexual abuse when he was a doctor at Ohio State between 1978 and 1998, 20 to 40 years before the first claims were filed.

Although the two-year statute of limitations had long expired, Ohio State offered survivors the opportunity to settle their lawsuits for substantial amounts. The majority of the survivors settled their claims. Ohio State has sincerely and persistently tried to reconcile with survivors through monetary and non-monetary means, and all male students who filed lawsuits have been offered the opportunity to settle.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling allows these decades-old claims to go back to the trial court. In their dissenting opinions, four judges wrote that the Court was ignoring Supreme Court rulings on the statute of limitations written by justices across the ideological spectrum – from Justice Antonin Scalia in 2007 to Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2019. Dissenting Sixth Circuit judges expressly invited the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.