IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN (COLUMBUS) DIVISION

Brian Garrett,

Edward Gonzales,

Kent Kilgore,

Adam Plouse, and

John Does 1-35, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Case 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD

The Ohio State University, 

Defendant.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 1 of 47 PAGEID #: 131
Page 1

1. The Ohio State University is a preeminent undergraduate and graduate 

research university and a perennial athletic powerhouse. 

2. Today, in 2018,1 Ohio State’s Strategic Plan vows that:

What Ohio State does matters. And how we do it matters....

We owe it to our students, our faculty, our staff and to our community. We owe it to 

ourselves. And, because we are Ohio State, we owe it to the nation.

3. Plaintiffs file this lawsuit in the hope that Ohio State will make good on 

that promise. Ohio State is right: now is the “time” for “change.” 

4. To make a change, Ohio State must take responsibility for a dark chapter 

in its storied history, a chapter during which its doctor and assistant professor, Dr. 

Richard Strauss, sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed potentially 

thousands of its students. 

5. For forty years—from 1978 until it undertook an investigation in 2018—

the University has been deliberately indifferent to the safety of its student body by, as 

detailed in this complaint, by failing to investigate the many complaints of Dr. Strauss’s 

 

1 The Ohio State University, Office of the President, https://president.osu.edu/strategicplan/ (last 

visited July 16, 2018).

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 2 of 47 PAGEID #: 132
Page 2

misconduct and harassment. Had it met its obligation to do so—an obligation that is not 

only social and moral, but also legal—the assault, molestation, and suffering of the 

Plaintiffs herein would have been prevented.

6. Dr. Strauss was employed by Defendant Ohio State University (“OSU” or 

“Ohio State”) to provide medical care and treatment to OSU’s students and studentathletes for twenty years. OSU made him an assistant professor of medicine and the 

official sports team doctor. OSU also employed Dr. Strauss to serve as a physician at 

OSU’s Student Health Services.

7. As a sports team doctor and assistant professor, Dr. Strauss was clothed in 

the authority and legitimacy of Ohio State. He was not only a medical doctor—he was 

Ohio State’s official medical doctor.

8. Dr. Strauss used his position of trust and confidence to regularly and 

systematically sexually assault, abuse, batter, molest, and harass male students and 

student-athletes over the entire course of his career in his capacity as an employee, agent, 

and/or representative of Ohio State.

9. Despite being repeatedly informed of Dr. Strauss’s sexual assault, abuse,

battery, molestation, and/or harassment, Ohio State failed to take appropriate action (or, 

in fact, any action whatsoever) to stop Dr. Strauss, to change the sexually hostile culture 

on campus, or to ensure the safety of its male students. 

10. These failures have continued. In the twenty years since Dr. Strauss’s 

tenure at OSU ended, OSU has taken no action to change the culture of indifference that 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 3 of 47 PAGEID #: 133
Page 3

allowed Dr. Strauss to assault OSU students for decades. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

12. This action is brought pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments

of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., as more fully set forth herein.

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under numerous 

statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). 

14. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the

events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims arose in this judicial district.

PARTIES

15. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

16. Plaintiff Brian Garrett is a resident of the State of Ohio. 

17. Brian graduated from OSU with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree in 

1996. He attended the graduate nursing program (nurse practitioner major) at OSU in 1997 

and 1998. He completed his Master of Science in Nursing degree at the University of 

Cincinnati (switched majors to nurse anesthesia as OSU did not offer this major) in 2003. 

He is currently employed as a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist.

18. Brian was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. 

Strauss at an off-campus health clinic in 1996.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 4 of 47 PAGEID #: 134
Page 4

19. Brian’s abuse would never have occurred had OSU taken appropriate action 

to investigate and address the multiple prior reports and complaints of Dr. Strauss’s sexual 

abuse.

20. Between approximately 1991 and 1995, OSU allowed Dr. Strauss to see 

student patients at the on-campus student health center. There, he had access to the entire 

student population, not just student athletes.

21. OSU removed Dr. Strauss from the student health center during the 1995 –

1996 school year after receiving a complaint from a student, although Dr. Strauss continued 

to be employed by OSU as an assistant professor and a varsity athletics physician until 

1998. 

22. Shortly after being ousted from the student health center, Dr. Strauss set up 

shop in a nondescript, three-story office building less than two miles from campus. There, 

he opened “Men’s Clinics of America,” a men’s health clinic that offered “Prompt 

Treatment of Common Genital/Urinary Problems.”

23.

An advertisement that ran in The Lantern

on multiple occasions during the Fall 1996 semester.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 5 of 47 PAGEID #: 135
Page 5

24. Despite the name, Men’s Clinics of America was only one clinic, and it had 

only one doctor—Richard Strauss.

25. “Men’s Clinics of America” was not even the real name of the business; 

Dr. Strauss ran the clinic through a corporation he formed in 1996, Richard H. Strauss, 

M.D., Inc. 

26. OSU would have discovered all of this had it vetted the ad in its campus 

paper from unnamed “experienced doctors” offering discounted sexual health services to 

its students. But OSU didn’t do that.

27. OSU was oblivious to these red flags—a doctor removed from his position 

in light of complaints of sexual abuse against him, opening his own clinic to treat “common 

genital/urinary problems.”

28. Instead, OSU allowed Dr. Strauss to solicit its male students for sexual 

health treatment in its student newspaper.

29. This was the perilous situation in which Brian found himself in 1996. In the 

spring of that year, another nursing student told Brian that a university doctor was opening 

an off-campus men’s health clinic and was hiring male nursing students to staff the clinic 

as office staff (not nursing staff). The doctor was recruiting students on campus at Larkins 

Hall, and Brian agreed to meet with the doctor. The doctor was Richard Strauss.

30. Brian did not know Dr. Strauss and had never heard of his reputation among 

student student-athletes. He met Dr. Strauss for the first time in an interview on campus in 

the spring of 1996.

31. Dr. Strauss offered Brian the opportunity to gain experience in a medical 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 6 of 47 PAGEID #: 136
Page 6

office and a recommendation from a highly-credentialed doctor, which Brian hoped would 

help get him with his application to OSU’s graduate nursing program. Dr. Strauss also 

offered decent pay, at least for a broke college kid. So Brian took the job. 

32. At the clinic, OSU athletes were given priority and seen on a walk-in 

(unscheduled) basis. For OSU athletes, there were no intake charts completed per Dr. 

Strauss’s request, and while Dr. Strauss saw other patients with the office staff, he saw 

OSU athletes alone. 

33. Brian began working for Dr. Strauss in the fall of 1996. On his third or 

fourth day working in the clinic, Dr. Strauss summoned Brian into the examination room 

while a male patient was lying supine on the examination bed. Dr. Strauss was standing 

over the patient. Dr. Strauss instructed Brian to stand in the corner of the room.

34. Dr. Strauss removed the patient’s pants and began to heavily fondle the 

patient’s penis and testicles until the patient achieved an erection. The patient’s face turned 

bright red; Brian presumes the patient was embarrassed. 

35. Dr. Strauss then instructed Brian to come closer. He did not explain why 

Brian needed to be closer to the patient. 

36. Dr. Strauss continued to fondle the patient until the patient ejaculated. Brian 

was shocked by what he witnessed. Dr. Strauss then instructed Brian to exit the exam room 

to retrieve tissues so that Dr. Strauss could clean up the ejaculation. 

37. When Brian subsequently asked Dr. Strauss about what happened, Dr. 

Strauss replied that he was “testing for premature ejaculation.” 

38. Brian recalls feeling uneasy about the incident, but, given the nature of the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 7 of 47 PAGEID #: 137
Page 7

clinic and his own limited medical experience at the time, he did not recognize that it was 

inappropriate.

39. Later that same day, Dr. Strauss asked Brian if he had any ailments. Brian 

complained to Dr. Strauss that he was experiencing severe heartburn. Dr. Strauss offered 

to examine and treat Brian.

40. Dr. Strauss had Brian lie down on the examination table and began touching 

and pressing on Brian’s abdomen while asking him questions about any pain he was 

experiencing. Dr. Strauss then unexpectedly removed Brian’s pants and began fondling his 

genitalia. Dr. Strauss explained that he was “just checking for some things.”

41. Brian was in shock. He immediately left the clinic and never returned.

42. Brian did not report the incident at the time because he believed his 

experience was an isolated incident and he feared repercussions for his graduate school 

application and career if he caused problems for a university doctor.

43. Years later, in late May 2018, Brian was at a Cleveland Indians game when 

his friend showed him a news article about the allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually 

abused student athletes. Upon seeing Dr. Strauss’s picture, Brian felt sick to his stomach 

and wanted to puke.

44. Since then, Brian has lost countless nights of sleep and, when he does sleep, 

he often wakes up feeling paralyzed, like he is back on Dr. Strauss’s exam table. He has 

sought counseling, has experienced difficulties pursuing opportunities related to his 

profession. Despite that he is a medical professional, he now fears his family getting 

medical treatment.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 8 of 47 PAGEID #: 138
Page 8

45. Brian decided to step forward in 2018 when he learned that he was not alone 

and that his was not an isolated incident.

46. Brian is a proud lifelong Buckeye. He holds undergraduate degrees from 

OSU (along with graduate school coursework), he met his wife there and proposed to her 

in Ohio Stadium, and he continues to donate his time and money to the university. He wants 

the university to acknowledge and take responsibility for the role it played in what 

happened to him and other students.

47. Like all Plaintiffs herein, Brian was not aware that Dr. Strauss’s conduct 

was not medically necessary and that it was, in fact, sexual assault.

48. Like all Plaintiffs herein, even if Brian had known that Dr. Strauss’s conduct 

constituted sexual assault, Brian was not informed or made aware of any formal OSU 

grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss.

49. Like all Plaintiffs herein, even if Brian had known that Dr. Strauss’s conduct 

constituted sexual assault, he had no reason to know the role that OSU had played in 

facilitating the abuse: OSU received but ignored or rebuffed or concealed complaints 

against Strauss, which prevented Brian, like all Plaintiffs, from discovering their claims 

against OSU.

50. Due to OSU ignoring and rebuffing and concealing complaints, any 

investigation by Brian or other Plaintiffs would have been futile. 

51. Like all Plaintiffs herein, until reading news coverage of the OSU 

investigation in 2018, Brian did not realize the magnitude or scope of Dr. Strauss’s abuse 

of OSU students, or OSU’s role in permitting Dr. Strauss’s rampant sexual misconduct. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 9 of 47 PAGEID #: 139
Page 9

52. Like all Plaintiffs herein, if OSU had taken meaningful action to address 

prior reports of Dr. Strauss’s sexual abuse, Brian would not have been abused by Dr. 

Strauss.

53. Like all Plaintiffs herein, had OSU taken meaningful remedial action once 

learning of Dr. Strauss’s abuse, Brian’s damages may have been mitigated. 

54. However, at no time did anyone from OSU ever reach out to Brian regarding 

Dr. Strauss; no one from OSU has ever apologized to Brian or offered him treatment or 

counseling for the abuse he suffered as an OSU student at the hands of OSU’s doctor. 

55. Like all Plaintiffs herein, Brian still suffers from the pervasive and 

systematic deprivation of his rights by OSU, which still has not acted to resolve or 

remediate its institution-wide failures related to Dr. Strauss.

56. Plaintiff Ed Gonzalez is a resident of Ohio and a former student-athlete on 

OSU’s track team. Ed was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. 

Strauss during examinations in the 1990s.

57. When Ed was an incoming freshman, he was directed to Dr. Strauss for a 

physical. 

58. Dr. Strauss had Ed remove his clothing and Dr. Strauss stared at Ed’s 

testicles, during which time Dr. Strauss put his face very close to Ed’s genitals and 

appeared to be attempting to conceal an erection. 

59. Dr. Strauss then massaged Plaintiff Gonzalez’s chest for an inappropriate 

amount of time and commented that he had “large pecs for a hurdler.” 

60. Plaintiff Kent Kilgore is a resident of Florida and a former student athlete on 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 10 of 47 PAGEID #: 140
Page 10

OSU’s swim team. Kent was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. 

Strauss during examinations in the 1980s. 

61. When Kent was an incoming freshman, on partial scholarship for swimming, 

he was directed to Dr. Strauss for a physical. 

62. Dr. Strauss used no gloves. Dr. Strauss examined his anal region and inserted 

his finger in Kent’s rectum. 

63. Dr. Strauss fondled Kent’s genitals and held his penis “in his hand and 

played with it like playdough.”

64. While at OSU, Kent had two “physicals” by Dr. Strauss, and has not had a 

physical since. 

65. At the time, he thought that was just what you had to go through to be in a 

big university.

66. Plaintiff Adam Plouse is a resident of the state of Ohio, and a former student 

athlete on OSU’s wrestling team. Adam was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or 

harassed by Dr. Strauss during examinations in the 1990s.

67. Adam attended OSU from 1995 to 1999. He wrestled for the first three years 

of his college career. 

68. Beginning his freshman year, he was warned by upperclassmen about Dr. 

Strauss, and tried to keep his distance.

69. Nevertheless, when Adam was a freshman, he was directed to Dr. Strauss 

for a physical where he endured an extensive and inappropriate hernia check.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 11 of 47 PAGEID #: 141
Page 11

70. On many occasions in Larkins Hall, Dr. Strauss watched Adam shower in a 

way that made Adam uncomfortable. 

71. John Doe 1 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former student-athlete on 

OSU’s soccer team in the 1990s. John Doe 1 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

72. John Doe 2 is a resident of the State of Ohio and attended OSU from 1991 

to 1997. John Doe 2 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. 

Strauss during his time at OSU.

73. John Doe 3 is a resident of the State of Michigan and was a student-athlete 

on OSU’s varsity hockey team during the late 1980s. John Doe 3 was sexually assaulted, 

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

74. John Doe 4 is a resident of the State of Ohio and is a former student-athlete 

on OSU’s wrestling team. John Doe 4 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or 

harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

75. Plaintiff John Doe 5 is a resident of the state of Ohio and is a former studentathlete on OSU’s swimming team. John Doe 5 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

76. Plaintiff John Doe 6 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s wrestling team. John Doe 6 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

77. Plaintiff John Doe 7 is a resident of the State of Ohio and was a student at 

OSU in the 1990s. John Doe 7 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 12 of 47 PAGEID #: 142
Page 12

harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

78. Plaintiff John Doe 8 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former student

of OSU. He was a student athlete on OSU’s wrestling team for one year in the 1980s. 

John Doe 8 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss

during his time at OSU.

79. Plaintiff John Doe 9 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s volleyball team. John Doe 9 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

80. Plaintiff John Doe 10 is a resident of the State of New Jersey and a former 

student-athlete on OSU’s fencing team. John Doe 10 was sexually assaulted, battered, 

molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

81. Plaintiff John Doe 11 is a resident of the State of North Carolina and a 

former student-athlete on OSU’s gymnastics team. John Doe 11 was sexually assaulted, 

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

82. Plaintiff John Doe 12 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s wrestling team.John Doe 12 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

83. Plaintiff John Doe 13 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s lacrosse team. John Doe 13 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

84. Plaintiff John Doe 14 is a resident of the State of California and a former 

student at OSU during the late 1970s-early 80s. John Doe 14 was sexually assaulted, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 13 of 47 PAGEID #: 143
Page 13

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

85. Plaintiff John Doe 15 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s volleyball team. John Doe 15 was sexually assaulted, battered, 

molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

86. Plaintiff John Doe 16 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former student 

at OSU. John Doe 16 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. 

Strauss during his time at OSU.

87. Plaintiff John Doe 17 is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and a former 

student-athlete on OSU’s lacrosse team. John Doe 17 was sexually assaulted, battered, 

molested, and/or harassed between ten and twenty times by Dr. Strauss during his time 

at OSU.

88. Plaintiff John Doe 18 is a resident of the State of Florida and a former 

student-athlete on OSU’s wrestling team in the late 1990s. John Doe 18 was sexually 

assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

89. Plaintiff John Doe 19 is a resident of the State of Colorado and a former 

student-athlete on OSU’s soccer team in the mid-1980s. John Doe 19 was sexually 

assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

90. Plaintiff John Doe 20 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s wrestling team. John Doe 20 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

91. Plaintiff John Doe 21 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s soccer team. John Doe 21 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 14 of 47 PAGEID #: 144
Page 14

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

92. Plaintiff John Doe 22 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete with OSU’s club soccer team. John Doe 22 was sexually assaulted, battered, 

molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

93. Plaintiff John Doe 23 is a resident of the State of Texas and a former 

student-athlete on OSU’s track team. John Doe 23 was sexually assaulted, battered, 

molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

94. Plaintiff John Doe 24 is a resident of the State of Maryland and a former 

student-athlete on OSU’s tennis team. John Doe 24 was sexually assaulted, battered, 

molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

95. Plaintiff John Doe 25 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s soccer team during the early 1990s. John Doe 25 was sexually assaulted, 

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

96. Plaintiff John Doe 26 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former OSU 

student. John Doe 26 was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. 

Strauss during his time at OSU.

97. Plaintiff John Doe 27 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former OSU 

student-athlete on OSU’s wrestling team in the 1980s. John Doe 27 was sexually assaulted, 

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

98. Plaintiff John Doe 28 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former OSU 

student who participated in elective scuba diving at OSU. John Doe 28 was sexually 

assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 15 of 47 PAGEID #: 145
Page 15

99. Plaintiff John Doe 29 is a resident of the State of California and a former 

OSU student-athlete on OSU’s gymnastics team in the 1980s. John Doe 29 was sexually 

assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

100. Plaintiff John Doe 30 is a resident of the State of California and a former 

OSU student-athlete on OSU’s lacrosse team in the 1980s. John Doe 30 was sexually 

assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

101. Plaintiff John Doe 31 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former OSU 

student-athlete on OSU’s wrestling team in the 1990s. John Doe 31 was sexually assaulted, 

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

102. Plaintiff John Doe 32 is a resident of the State of Florida and a former OSU 

student-athlete on OSU’s diving team in the 1980s. John Doe 32 was sexually assaulted, 

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

103. Plaintiff John Doe 33 is a resident of the State of New York and a former 

OSU student-athlete on OSU’s tennis team in the 1980s. John Doe 33 was sexually 

assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

104. Plaintiff John Doe 34 is a resident of the State of Colorado and a former OSU 

student-athlete on OSU’s volleyball team in the 1990s. John Doe 34 was sexually assaulted, 

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

105. Plaintiff John Doe 35 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former OSU 

student-athlete on OSU’s soccer team in the 1990s. John Doe 35 was sexually assaulted, 

battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU.

106. Defendant The Ohio State University (“OSU” or “Ohio State”) is and at all 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 16 of 47 PAGEID #: 146
Page 16

relevant times has been a state-owned and operated public university and institution of 

higher education organized and existing under laws of the State of Ohio. OSU receives 

federal financial assistance and is therefore subject to Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.

107. At all times relevant hereto, Richard Strauss, M.D. was an actual and/or 

apparent, duly-authorized agent, servant and/or employee of OSU and performed 

medical services for OSU students-patients as part of his employment.

108. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Ohio State was complicit and 

deliberately indifferent to the sexual assault and harassing conduct of Dr. Strauss. 

109. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Ohio State was complicit and 

deliberately indifferent to reports it received regarding Dr. Strauss’s sexually harassing 

conduct. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

110. Ohio State hired Dr. Strauss in 1978 as an assistant professor of medicine.

From 1981 to 1995, Strauss was the University’s team doctor and had contact with 

athletes in baseball, cheerleading, cross country, fencing, football, gymnastics, ice 

hockey, lacrosse, soccer, swimming, tennis, track, volleyball, and wrestling. He was also 

a part-time physician with OSU’s Student Health Services.

111. Dr. Strauss was a prolific sexual predator—he is estimated to have 

sexually assaulted, abused, battered, molested, and/or harassed 1,500 to 2,500 male 

students and student-athletes during his 20-year tenure at Ohio State. 

112. This abuse began his very first year of employment at OSU, and he 

continued fondling, groping, sexually assaulting, and harassing OSU’s male students and 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 17 of 47 PAGEID #: 147
Page 17

student-athletes until his retirement in 1998. He did so with OSU’s knowledge and support. 

113. OSU played a key role in normalizing and perpetuating Dr. Strauss’s serial 

sexual abuse.

114. OSU facilitated his abuse by requiring that student-athletes undergo annual 

physical exams with Dr. Strauss in order to participate in OSU athletics and maintain their 

scholarships.

115. His notoriously hands-on examinations earned him different nicknames

over the years, including “Dr. Jelly Paws,” “Dr. Drop-Your-Drawers,” “Dr. Nuts,” and “Dr. 

Cough.”

116. These were nicknames well-known by OSU coaching staff, trainers, and 

student athletes. 

117. In 1993, one wrestler recalls being at one of his earliest practices with the 

team, where he was told that a physical would be required and was directed to Dr. Strauss. 

He was warned by upperclassmen who joked, “watch out - he's going to play with you.”

At the physical, Dr. Strauss engaged in fondling and close inspection of his genitals for an 

extended amount of time.

118. For decades, Dr. Strauss was a fixture in the locker rooms, showers, and 

saunas of Larkins Hall, the former student and faculty recreation center on the Ohio State 

campus that housed the wrestling, gymnastics, and swimming teams. 

119. A former OSU wrestling coach described Larkins Hall as “a cesspool of 

deviancy,” saying “Coaching my athletes in Larkins Hall was one of the most difficult 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 18 of 47 PAGEID #: 148
Page 18

things I ever did.”2

120. Student athletes were regularly harassed in Larkins Hall by sexually 

aggressive men who attended the university or worked there:

The voyeurs would masturbate while watching the wrestlers shower or sit in 

the sauna, or engage in sexual acts in the areas where the athletes trained, the 

former wrestlers said.

...

The situation was so egregious that former wrestling head coach Russ 

Hellickson would at times have to physically drag the gawkers out of the 

building, several sources familiar with his actions at the time said. Hellickson 

pleaded with the university multiple times to move their athletes to a private 

facility, the sources said....

3

121. Student athletes also pleaded with the University administration to make 

changes to Larkins Hall to protect student athletes. 

122. During the 1994-1995 season, two wrestlers met with then-Athletic 

Director Andy Geiger (“AD Geiger”) in his office. The wrestlers complained about the 

voyeuristic and lewd conduct of the men in the lockers and saunas of Larkins Hall. They 

specifically complained of Dr. Strauss’s conduct. 

123. They presented AD Geiger with drawings of changes to the wrestling and 

gymnastics locker room that they believed would enhance safety and privacy for student 

athletes. 

124. AD Geiger promised to look into doing something about the situation.

 

2

 Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan, ‘A cesspool of deviancy’: New claims of voyeurism test 

Jordan denials, POLITICO, (July 6, 2018), https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/06/jimjordan-harassment-ohio-state-wrestling-699192. (last visited July 16, 2018).

3

 Id.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 19 of 47 PAGEID #: 149
Page 19

125. But Ohio State did nothing. 

126. It did not move the athletes to a private facility, as Coach Hellickson 

requested. 

127. And it did not make the changes the wrestlers suggested. 

128. Only one thing changed: the locker room carpet was cleaned. 

129. Ohio State demolished Larkins Hall in 2005, the same year Dr. Strauss 

took his own life. 

130. Dr. Strauss thrived at Larkins Hall. Like many sexual predators, once he 

selected his prey, he took steps to groom them for abuse. 

131. Dr. Strauss would shower with athletes after workouts at the Larkins 

facility, and had his locker in the students’ locker room. 

132. Dr. Strauss generally showered multiple times daily—a shower with each 

team—where he would wash himself while staring at the showering athletes.

133. On many occasions, Dr. Strauss would postpone performing medical 

treatments after practice so that he could shower with the wrestling team.

134. Dr. Strauss also scheduled his showers so that he could view his favorite 

athletes naked. 

135. In one instance, Dr. Strauss had just finished showering, had dressed, and 

was leaving the locker room. As Dr. Strauss was exiting the locker room, one of his 

favorite wrestlers entered and prepared to shower. Dr. Strauss immediately undid his tie, 

returned to his locker, undressed, and joined the athlete in the shower, his second shower 

in a matter of minutes.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 20 of 47 PAGEID #: 150
Page 20

136. Dr. Strauss once moved his locker to be next to the locker of one of his 

favorite wrestlers, who, accordingly to another former wrestler, looked like an 

“Abercrombie & Fitch model.” 

137. Dr. Strauss took his harassment a step further behind the closed door of 

his on-campus examination room.

138. Ohio State required student athletes to undergo physical examinations by 

Dr. Strauss at least once per season, and sometimes more often. 

139. During these required examinations, Dr. Strauss forced male student 

athletes to undress from the waist down and submit to invasive and medically 

unnecessary examinations, during which he would touch and fondle their genitalia and 

digitally penetrate their anuses, often telling the athletes that he was checking for 

hernias.

140. There was no medical necessity for Dr. Strauss’s examination, touching, 

and fondling of male student athletes’ genitalia or digital anal penetration during the 

required periodic physical examinations—Dr. Strauss did it for his own personal, sexual 

gratification.

141. One former athlete describes how Dr. Strauss was in charge of checking for 

hernias during training camp, and would conduct physicals in a private room. During the 

examination, Dr. Strauss sat on a stool directly in front of the athlete, with his head at about 

the height of his penis. Dr. Strauss required the athlete to completely remove his shorts and 

underwear. After completing the hernia check, Dr. Strauss kept him standing there for an 

uncomfortable period of time. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 21 of 47 PAGEID #: 151
Page 21

142. Dr. Strauss then asked, “How was your summer?” to which the student

responded “It was very good, thank you.” Then, using his entire hand, Dr. Strauss took 

the student’s penis and lifted it up towards his belly button, inspecting his scrotum. 

During this time, he placed his hands on the student’s testicles several times as well. In 

this athlete’s opinion, Dr. Strauss was trying stimulate him sexually. After approximately 

5-10 minutes had passed, Dr. Strauss replied “It couldn't have been too good, because I 

don't see any diseases anywhere.” The student laughed nervously because he was unsure 

how to respond to this comment, which made him very, very uncomfortable. Dr. Strauss 

then released his penis and said “everything is fine.” This student believes that the 

examination ended because Dr. Strauss was not able to arouse him sexually. 

143. The athlete, along with a teammate, reported Dr. Strauss’s conduct thenassistant athletic trainer (later Director of Athletic Training) Bill Davis, who expressed 

concern. But OSU did nothing.

144. Another former athlete described the first time he was examined by Dr. 

Strauss in the fall of 1994: “I’m sitting, and he straddled my thigh, mounted my thigh. 

Rubbed on my thigh. I was just frozen,” the athlete said.4

145. Dr. Strauss then asked the athlete to get naked so Dr. Strauss could check

for a sports hernia. The athlete said Strauss proceeded to “inspect my penis in detail” for

a significant amount of time.5

 

4 Kevin Stankiewicz, Former Ohio State athlete says he was sexually assaulted twice by former

team doctor Richard Strauss, THE LANTERN (April 6, 2018),

https://www.thelantern.com/2018/04/former-ohio-state-athlete-says-he-was-sexually-assaultedtwice-by-former-team-doctor-richard-strauss/ (last visited July 16, 2018).

5

 Id.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 22 of 47 PAGEID #: 152
Page 22

146. Dr. Strauss gave the athlete a physical again the next year. It lasted about

20 minutes, 15 minutes of which involved Dr. Strauss closely inspecting his genitalia.6

147. The athlete remembers being concerned at the time, but alarms were raised

the next year when another doctor gave the athlete a physical. It lasted only five minutes.

The athlete recalls thinking at the time, “No hernia test, didn’t get naked. Is

that it?”

“Then I was like, ‘Holy moly,’” the athlete said.

“I was always afraid. [Strauss] was the leading doctor on steroid use in the

world, and I was always like, he could always say that medically there’s some

reason that he needs to spend 15 minutes on my penis,” the athlete said. “He

could have said that, and he’s dead now, but that’s what always scared me.

But now I’m like, that’s crazy. Especially when that other doctor came in in

five minutes and checked me out.”7

 

148. As the former athlete explained, he felt powerless to stop Strauss’s abuse:

“Someone had to make that decision [to let Strauss continue conducting

physicals],” the athlete said. “Let’s say he’s a great doctor, fine. He doesn’t

have to do the physicals, because it’s like someone was pretty much feeding

us to him. I didn’t have a choice to say, ‘I want somebody else to do my

physical’ because I didn’t feel like I had any power in that position.”8

149. Indeed, Ohio State fed its students and student-athletes to Dr. Strauss; 

these students were particularly vulnerable to abuse.

150. Many of the student-athletes depended on athletic scholarships to attend 

Ohio State, scholarships which were contingent on playing by the school’s rules, 

including the requirement to undergo physical examinations by Dr. Strauss.

 

6

Id.

7

 Id.

8

 Id.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 23 of 47 PAGEID #: 153
Page 23

151. One athlete asked if he could get his mandatory yearly physical exam 

elsewhere, but was told he had to see Dr. Strauss. These were the longest exams he had 

ever experienced, and always included a “hernia check.” 

152. But Dr. Strauss did not confine his abuse to the periodic physical 

examinations required by Ohio State. 

153. Ohio State allowed Dr. Strauss to treat student-athletes for sports injuries 

and everything else—from heartburn to sprained ankles. 

154. Regardless of the ailment, Dr. Strauss’s treatment of male student athletes 

almost always included examination, touching, and fondling of their genitalia, and it 

frequently included digital anal penetration.

155. A former OSU gymnast, and Plaintiff herein, specifically recalls any time 

he saw Dr. for a medical issue, whether it was an annual physical, a broken bone, or an 

ear infection, he was required to disrobe and endure an extended and uncomfortable 

examination of his lower body.

156. A former wrestler recalls Dr. Strauss approaching him in Larkins Hall and 

suggesting that, if he would come to the health center, Dr. Strauss could write him a 

prescription for acne. When he did so, Dr. Strauss had him disrobe and lay down on the 

examination table. Dr. Strauss inspected and fondled the athlete for five minutes, trying 

to bring him to an erection. When he was unsuccessful, he wrote the prescription for 

acne medication and the student left. 

157. Some athletes saw it as the price of getting treatment. 

158. Ohio State forced student athletes to make a chilling decision: either seek 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 24 of 47 PAGEID #: 154
Page 24

treatment from Dr. Strauss and submit to his molestation or forego treatment and live with 

illness or injury. 

159. Athletes had to receive physicals before competing, whether or not they

were injured, which meant that systematic sexual abuse from Dr. Strauss was inevitable 

under the Devil’s bargain Ohio State forced them to make with themselves. 

160. With their collegiate athletic careers and scholarships on the line, many 

athletes sought treatment from Dr. Strauss for their physical conditions, at a high cost to 

their mental and emotional health.

161. OSU also permitted Dr. Strauss to treat nonathletes at OSU’s Student Health 

Services campus health clinic until complaints led OSU to relegate Dr. Strauss to serving 

only its athletic teams.

162. One Plaintiff went to the campus health clinic with what he believed was 

strep throat. Dr. Strauss required him to disrobe, and ultimately fondled him to erection and 

ejaculation. The student had to remind Dr. Strauss to do the strep swab before leaving.

163. One Plaintiff saw Dr. Strauss at the OSU health center in the 1990s for 

burning with urination. Dr. Strauss digitally penetrated his anus, under the guise of 

checking his prostate, and commented “Don’t worry, this sometimes makes guys 

ejaculate.” On a follow-up visit, Dr. Strauss fondled the student to ejaculation. This 

student did not see a doctor for the rest of his college career, or for many many years 

after.

164. One Plaintiff remembers seeing Dr. Strauss twice at the health clinic: on 

both occasions, Dr. Strauss insisted on a very thorough genital examination and digitally 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 25 of 47 PAGEID #: 155
Page 25

penetrated his anus. Dr. Strauss told the man it was usual and customary to get an erection 

during the exam, and not to worry if he did. 

165. Dr. Strauss’s abuse—which OSU allowed to continue unchecked 

throughout his long tenure—traumatized many victims for decades. Indeed, some victims 

continue to be afraid to see doctors to this day, causing them to neglect their health and to 

receive dangerous diagnoses late. 

166. OSU knew or should have known from the beginning that Strauss was a 

sexual predator. In 1978—Dr. Strauss’s first year at Ohio State—Dr. Strauss fondled a

former wrestling team captain during an exam. The wrestler left the exam and went to the 

Ohio State student health center where he complained about Dr. Strauss’s fondling to 

another doctor. 

167. The doctor told the wrestler that the exam he described was “not normal.” 

But the doctor did nothing. Ohio State did nothing. 

168. Complaints continued to pour in over the years, including to track and field 

coach Frank Zubovich, tennis coach John Daly,

9

 then-assistant athletic trainer (later 

Director of Athletic Training) Bill Davis, Director of OSU Student Health Services, Ted 

Grace, M.D., and Athletic Director Andy Geiger.

169. The years passed, the complaints of disturbing and graphic sexual assault 

by Dr. Strauss multiplied, and no one took any corrective action. Nor did OSU.

170. In 1993, another former OSU wrestler complained about Dr. Strauss to 

 

9

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/13/638306947/former-ohio-state-students-report-decades-ofsexual-misconduct-by-university-phy. (last visited August 14, 2018).

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 26 of 47 PAGEID #: 156
Page 26

former head wrestling coach Russ Hellickson after being groped during three exams. The 

wrestler said that Coach Hellickson told Dr. Strauss to stop such behavior.

171. Coach Hellickson told Dr. Strauss that some of the athletes were 

“uncomfortable” with him showering with them, to which the doctor responded that 

Hellickson also showered with the athletes. Hellickson responded: “Not for an hour, 

Doc.”10

172. Coach Hellickson also complained to Dr. Strauss about touching his 

athletes: “I said ‘When you’re doing weigh-ins, you’re too hands on, Doc,’” Hellickson 

said.11

173. As the complaints against Dr. Strauss mounted,12 OSU eventually held a 

hearing on Dr. Strauss in or around the spring of 1997.13

174. But OSU took no legal or disciplinary action against Dr. Strauss as a result 

of the hearing.

175. Dr. Strauss quietly retired from his positions at OSU after the hearing.

176. In fact, upon his retirement, he was made an Emeritus Professor: In a 

 

10 Eliza Collins, Ex-OSU coach defends Jordan in abuse scandal but says team doctor made 

athletes ‘uncomfortable’, USA TODAY (July 10, 2018), 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/10/trump-conservatives-stickingjordan-over-abuse-allegations-but-others/769402002/. (last visited July 16, 2018).

11

 Id.

12Andrew Welsh-Huggins, List grows of people said to know of Ohio St. doctor’s abuse,

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-08-11/list-grows-of-officials-said-to-know-ofex-doctors-abuse (last visited October 25, 2018). 

13 Kevin Stankiewicz, Former Ohio State athlete says he was sexually assaulted twice by former

team doctor Richard Strauss, THE LANTERN (April 6, 2018),

https://www.thelantern.com/2018/04/former-ohio-state-athlete-says-he-was-sexually-assaultedtwice-by-former-team-doctor-richard-strauss/. (last visited July 16, 2018).

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 27 of 47 PAGEID #: 157
Page 27

memo announcing his retirement, OSU officials proclaimed, “Dr. Strauss has become a 

national and international renowned expert in the field of sports medicine through his 

outstanding teaching, service and research.”

177. OSU made these statements despite its knowledge that Dr. Strauss had 

perpetuated sexual abuse on thousands of innocent students.

178. And this distinguished legacy followed Dr. Strauss for the next 20 years,

until in 2018 a group of athletes came forward publicly and shared their stories of abuse 

and of OSU’s failure to respond. 

179. Unfortunately, OSU has fostered a culture of institutional indifference to 

the rights and safety of its students: Dr. Strauss is not the only OSU employee who has 

used his position to abuse students, although he may be the most prolific abuser.

180. This continuing culture of indifference has been noted by the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in multiple lawsuits against the 

University, and in the media. 

181. In June of 2010, the United States Department of Education’s Office of 

Civil Rights (“OCR”) began an investigation into OSU regarding its policies and 

procedures enacted to protect and respond to victims of sexual assault and abuse on 

campus. 

182. Only after the investigation began and OCR issued a 2011 Dear Colleague

letter on sexual violence did OSU scramble to revise its sexual abuse policies and 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 28 of 47 PAGEID #: 158
Page 28

procedures.14

183. To close the review, OSU entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.15

184. After OCR initiated its investigation, OSU internally investigated a sexual 

harassment complaint against its marching band, which resulted in the dismissal of its

director, Jonathan Waters, for fostering a “culture of intimidation.” The investigation found 

that OSU had notice of the hostile environment but had failed to do anything about it.

185. Upon completion of the overarching OCR investigation, which spanned 

more than four years, OCR made findings that OSU violated Title IX.

186. OCR mandated inter alia that “Once a [Title IX] recipient knows or 

reasonably should know of possible sexual harassment, it must take immediate and 

appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred.”

16

187. In July of 2014, OSU President Michael Drake pledged “Nothing is more 

important than the safety of our students. We expect every member of our community to 

live up to a common standard of decency and mutual respect and to adhere to university 

policies.”17

188. Coincidentally, just days later, in August of 2014, during a diving meet, 

 

14 See Letter from Meena Morey Chandra, Regional Director, Reg. XV, Office for Civil Rights, 

U.S. Dep’t Educ., to Dr. Michael V. Drake, President, Ohio State University, 2 (Sept. 11, 2014) 

(describing results of OSU’s investigation of alleged sexual harassment within Marching Band), 

https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/ohio-state-letter.pdf (last visited August 14, 

2018) (hereinafter “OCR Findings Letter”). 

15 Resolution Agreement, Ohio State University, OCR Docket #15-10-6002, accessible at 

https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/ohio-state-agreement.pdf (last visited July 24, 

2018). 

16 Letter from Meena Morey Chandra, Regional Director, OCR, to Dr. Michael Drake, President 

of OSU (September 11, 2014)

17 Id. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 29 of 47 PAGEID #: 159
Page 29

Ohio State received a report that OSU assistant diving coach Will Bohonyi was sexually 

abusing a minor member of OSU’s Diving Club. Inexplicably, OSU allegedly sent the 

victim—not the perpetrator—home from the meet.

189. OSU then failed to take action to address the hundreds of naked photographs 

of the underage victim engaged in sexual acts that Coach Bohonyi had forced her to take. 

These photographs—child pornography—have sat in OSU’s possession for some four 

years.

190. Despite its pledge and resolution agreement in response to the 2010-2014 

OCR investigation, OSU continued to foster a culture of indifference and has demonstrably 

failed to show it was working to protect survivors of sexual violence. 

191. OSU has continued to respond inappropriately and unreasonably to reports 

of sexual violence. 

192. OSU’s inaction and pattern of deliberate indifference has been exhibited by 

the University at least since 1978, the year that Strauss was hired and first abused a student.

193. This pattern of deliberate indifference persisted through Dr. Strauss’s long 

career at OSU, despite notice to appropriate people, including multiple head coaches, the 

future Director of Athletic Training, Director of Student Health, and an Athletic Director, 

who could have and should have taken action. 

194. This pattern of deliberate indifference continued beyond Dr. Strauss’s 

retirement, as evidenced by numerous, persistent reports and allegations of sexual abuse 

and misconduct across campus that were not properly addressed by the University and

permitted the creation of a campus condition rife with sexual assault. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 30 of 47 PAGEID #: 160
Page 30

195. Any policies or procedures in place at OSU during Dr. Strauss’s tenure were 

clearly ineffective and inadequate and essentially served no purpose in protecting students.

196. Ohio State’s delay and deliberate indifference has created a hostile 

environment for its male students, particularly its male athletes.

197. Case in point: it has been four years since OSU was specifically put on 

notice by the Department of Education that its culture fostered a sexually hostile 

environment for students, and yet no action has been taken to remedy the abuse suffered 

by its students, including the victims of Dr. Richard Strauss. 

198. In April 2018, twenty years after Dr. Strauss’s retirement, and forty years 

after the first complaint of abuse, OSU opened an investigation into complaints against 

Strauss made directly to OSU by student athletes dating back to the late 1970s. 

199. OSU only began the investigation in an effort to protect its brand, after

multiple former students came forward with their stories of abuse by Dr. Strauss, and these 

stories were publicized in the media.

200. To date, investigators have completed interviews with more than 200 former 

students and staff, including over 100 former students who report firsthand accounts of 

sexual abuse and harassment.

201. Although many of Dr. Strauss’s victims, including the Plaintiffs in this case, 

felt that his exams were medically inappropriate and deeply uncomfortable, many of them 

did not realize these exams constituted illegal sexual abuse and harassment until after OSU 

publicized its investigation this year.

202. Nor did they realize the magnitude or scope of Dr. Strauss’s abuse of OSU 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 31 of 47 PAGEID #: 161
Page 31

students or OSU’s role in permitting Dr. Strauss’s rampant sexual misconduct. 

203. And many of Strauss’s victims, including the Plaintiffs in this case, were 

revictimized by the opening of this investigation in April 2018, having compartmentalized 

and repressed their memories of abuse for many years.

204. They have been further revictimized in recounting the horrific details of 

their abuse to the “independent” investigators OSU is paying to finally look into Dr. 

Strauss’s legacy.

205. The Perkins Coie investigators are no more than a team of lawyers, paid by 

OSU to canvas victims and frame the extent of OSU’s potential liability.

206. No detailed written statements are taken, and the victims are not provided 

their written statements for feedback, correction, or follow-up.

207. The “investigation” is not professionally done: victims are not given the 

choice of male or female interviewers for this sensitive information. The lead investigators 

are white collar defense investigators, and there is no indication that they are trained in 

trauma-informed interviewing or counseling. 

208. The female interviewers who have talked with Plaintiffs and others are not 

specially trained or certified for interviewing sex abuse victims; for example, one is an ediscovery/document review attorney at Perkins Coie. 

209. The “investigation” is not to change the culture at OSU: The victims who 

are reaching out to speak with Perkins Coie are not asked about how the OSU system could 

be fixed to prevent what happened for decades. 

210. The “investigation” is not to accept responsibility for what happened: OSU 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 32 of 47 PAGEID #: 162
Page 32

has not marshalled resources to provide treatment for the victims, never once offering to 

cover or provide treatment. 

211. OSU has not insisted that its insurers provide coverage or help in any way. 

212. OSU has rejected Plaintiffs’ invitation to mediate, has moved to deny 

discovery, and has filed motion to dismiss telling the victims to go away.

213. Upon being presented with detailed and credible evidence of Strauss’s 

sexual abuse and the institutional ineptitude in its response, Ohio State still refuses to take 

accountability. 

214. In the more than six months since the investigation began, no findings have 

been made about OSU’s inadequate handling of complaints against Dr. Strauss, despite 

countless hours of victim interviews, in which OSU’s alumni recount the specific, lurid 

details of their college experience. 

215. In the more than six months since the investigation began, OSU has taken 

no action to remedy or resolve the failures that led to OSU’s deliberate indifference to 

abuse by its employees. 

216. OSU knows who the team members of the various sports were from 1978-

2004, and who the male patients in its Clinic were from 1978-2004, but has done nothing 

to identify where they are now, and contact them—claiming instead it does not want to 

“re-traumatize” them by bringing up the past. This implies OSU knows it is likely that 

every male athlete was abused, that the abuse itself was painful, that they have repressed 

it for decades, and that coping with it will be painful even now.

217. OSU has made it clear since 1978: It doesn’t want to know what happened 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 33 of 47 PAGEID #: 163
Page 33

to Plaintiffs or other alumni who were victimized by Richard Strauss.

218. OSU doesn’t want to be held accountable for employing a serial, sexual 

predator, allowing him to abuse students for years, and then failing to take any remedial 

action to help these students.

219. If OSU had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss’s 

sexual abuse forty years ago, Plaintiffs would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss.

220. Since the allegations became public in early 2018 and OSU opened its 

investigation, OSU now has ample notice of Dr. Strauss’s abuse of its students, including 

Plaintiffs herein, and yet it has taken no affirmative action to change or improve upon the 

culture of indifference or help the victims. 

221. OSU’s actions and inactions had the systematic effect of depriving Plaintiffs 

herein and countless other students of the educational benefits afforded to them through 

their enrollment in the University. 

222. This pattern of failing to protect students and allowing sexual assault to 

perpetuate and continue effectively remains today at OSU.

223. In May of 2018, the University announced it had conducted an independent 

review of its Sexual Civility and Empowerment unit (“SCE”), an on-campus entity enacted 

to support victims of sexual assault.18

224. The findings of this external review indicated that the SCE had failed to 

 

18 Zach Varda and Michael Lee, Ohio State shuts down its Sexual Civility and Empowerment 

unit, The Lantern, June 19, 2018, https://www.thelantern.com/2018/06/ohio-state-shutting-downsexual-civility-and-empowerment-unit/. (last visited August 29, 2018)

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 34 of 47 PAGEID #: 164
Page 34

properly document and report pertinent information regarding sexual assault complaints 

made by students.19

225. The Ohio Health Sexual Assault Response Network of Central Ohio made 

deeply disturbing findings regarding the response by university employees at the SCE to 

victims of sexual abuse. 20

226. Among the findings made were that “Survivors were subjected to victimblaming, unethical and re-traumatizing treatment by SCE advocates. Some victims were 

told they were lying or delusional, suffered from mental illness, had an active imagination, 

didn’t understand their own experience or fabricated their story.”

227. In a statement by the University following the findings made regarding 

SCE, OSU claimed it is working toward improvement: “Ohio State will do all that we can 

to be a national leader in preventing and responding to sexual misconduct,” Ohio State 

University President Michael Drake said in a statement. “Our campuses must be safe places 

for all members of our community to learn, work and grow. We remain steadfastly and 

unwaveringly committed to this goal.”21 But this statement is belied by OSU’s conduct: 

Forty years after Richard Strauss began sexual assaulting students under the guise of 

practicing medicine, OSU has continued to fail to enact or implement meaningful change 

or programs to protect victims.

 

19 Id.

20 Jennifer Smola, Ohio State closes sexual-assault center, fires 4 after complaints, The 

Columbus Dispatch, June 19, 2018. http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180619/ohio-state-closessexual-assault-center-fires-4-after-complaints (last visited September 23, 2018)

21 Id.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 35 of 47 PAGEID #: 165
Page 35

228. OSU’s efforts to protect its own image at the expense of students is starting 

to unravel.

229. In August 2018, the Office for Civil Rights announced it would again be 

launching an investigation into OSU’s compliance with Title IX, to inquire whether the 

University responds promptly and equitably to complaints and reports of sexual 

misconduct by former students.22

230. Ohio State University’s continued indifference and resulting inaction to 

sexual abuse allegations against Strauss is wanton, willful and with reckless disregard and 

neglect of Plaintiffs’ rights, safety and wellbeing.

231. OSU has displayed and continues to display deliberate indifference to the 

suffering of its students. It perpetuated a sexually hostile environment and a culture of 

deliberate indifference by ignoring widespread and repeated complaints of Dr. Strauss’s 

conduct. Its pre-assault failures resulted in additional harm to Plaintiffs. Had OSU 

responded appropriately and reasonably to complaints, assault could have been avoided. 

Instead, it concealed and rebuffed reports, which prevented Plaintiffs from discovering 

their claims. 

232. OSU encouraged an attitude of deliberate indifference—sweeping away 

allegations of abuse, at best, and outright ignoring these allegations at worst—all in the 

name of protecting the University’s supposed integrity and coaxing more and more student-

 

22 Dakin Andone, Ohio State University faces federal investigation into alleged sexual 

misconduct by school doctor, August 17, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/us/ohio-stateuniversity-federal-investigation/index.html (last visited October 25, 2018)

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 36 of 47 PAGEID #: 166
Page 36

athletes to help OSU win championships despite the cruel personal toll.

233. Only recently could OSU no longer hide behind its self-made veil of 

secrecy. With the jig finally up, OSU has proclaimed its intent to investigate despite its 

quiet efforts to kill Plaintiffs’ claims along with their spirits.

234. In this manner, Plaintiffs’ claim stems from OSU’s deliberate indifference, 

spawned by Dr. Strauss’s barbarism, and OSU’s decades-long refusal to own Dr. Strauss’s 

behavior and to make proper amends to his victims. Instead, OSU ignored it, excused, it, 

and did everything except own up. But still, OSU seeks to evade responsibility. Plaintiffs’ 

amended complaint does not let that happen.

235. It is time to hold OSU accountable. 

236. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs demand that OSU acknowledge its failures, 

account for the damages these failures have caused, and institute real and meaningful 

change to ensure that no future OSU students endure such abuse and harassment.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

237. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23 (b)(3) or (c)(4) on behalf of themselves and the following

“Nationwide Class”:

All male students or student-athletes of Ohio State University who (1) were 

examined by Dr. Richard Strauss at Ohio State University or (2) participated in a 

varsity athletic sport that utilized the locker rooms, showers, and/or saunas at 

Larkins Hall at any time between 1978 and 1998. Excluded from the class are (1) 

individuals who have already filed suit in Case No. 18-cv-736-MHW-EPD as of 

the date of this Complaint.

238. The Classes consist of hundreds, if not thousands, of men throughout the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 37 of 47 PAGEID #: 167
Page 37

United States, making joinder impracticable, in satisfaction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The 

exact size of the Class and the identities of the individual members are ascertainable 

through records maintained by the Ohio State.

239. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the Classes. The claims of the 

Plaintiffs and the Classes are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same 

factual pattern involving the Defendant’s misconduct. 

240. There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiffs

and the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect only 

individual Class members within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4). 

241. Common questions of fact or common questions of law affecting members 

of the Class include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Defendant violated Title IX of 20 U.S.C. §1681?

b. Whether Defendant displayed deliberate indifference to the sexual 

abuse, assaults, and discrimination at Ohio State? 

c. Whether Defendant had knowledge or knew that Richard Strauss 

was engaging in sexual abuse of Ohio State’s male students and 

student-athletes?

d. Whether Defendant concealed, dismissed, discouraged or rebuffed 

complaints that, if handled reasonably and timely (and in compliance 

with Title IX) would have prevented future abuse?

e. Whether Plaintiffs were damaged by the violations caused by 

Defendants?

242. Absent a class action, most of the members of the Class would find the 

cost of litigating their claims to be prohibitive and would have no effective remedy. The 

class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 38 of 47 PAGEID #: 168
Page 38

individual actions or piecemeal litigation, particularly as to liability, in that it conserves 

the resources of the courts and the litigants and promotes the consistency and efficiency 

of adjudication.

243. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of 

the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting 

complex litigation and class actions, and who have expertise in prosecuting personal 

injury, sexual abuse, and civil rights cases on behalf of vulnerable victims. 

244. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this 

action on behalf of the other Class members, and they have the financial resources and 

experience in handling sex abuse cases to do so.

245. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interests adverse to those of 

the other members of the Class. 

246. Plaintiffs and the Class will have personal injury damages that are 

individualized and that can be managed separately. 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq

247. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs.

248. Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), states: “No person in the United States shall, 

on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal 

financial assistance....”

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 39 of 47 PAGEID #: 169
Page 39

249. Title IX also protects third parties from sexual harassment or violence in 

a school’s education programs and activities.

250. Under Title IX, sexual harassment is any type of unwelcome conduct of a 

sexual nature and “includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and 

other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

251. Plaintiffs are “persons” within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. §1681(a).

252. Defendant OSU receives federal financial assistance and is therefore 

subject to the provisions of Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681, et 

seq.

253. As the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has 

explained, Title IX covers all programs of a school, and extends to sexual harassment 

and assault by employees, students, and third parties.

254. Dr. Strauss’s actions and conduct were carried out in his capacity as a team 

doctor and assistant medical professor of OSU.

255. Dr. Strauss’s sexual assault, battery, molestation, and harassment of 

Plaintiffs, including the fondling of testicles, fondling and penetration of penises, and 

nonconsensual digital anal penetration, was sexual discrimination and sexual harassment 

under Title IX.

256. Pursuant to Title IX, Defendant OSU was obligated and required to 

investigate all allegations of sexual assault, battery, molestation, and harassment, 

including allegations that sexual assault, battery, molestation, and harassment has been 

committed by an employee, student, or third party.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 40 of 47 PAGEID #: 170
Page 40

257. Defendant OSU owed Plaintiffs duties under Title IX, which duties 

included not to engage in and be deliberately indifferent to known sexual assault, battery, 

molestation, harassment, or any other form of sexual misconduct.

258. An “appropriate person” of OSU, within the meaning of Title IX, 

including but not limited to, former Athletic Director and Assistant University Vice 

President Andy Geiger, former head wrestling coach Russell Hellickson, former head 

tennis coach John Daly, Director of Student Health Ted Grace, M.D., former assistant 

athletic trainer Bill Davis (later Director of Athletic Training at OSU), current university 

president Dr. Michael Drake, and other OSU faculty, staff, administrators, executives 

and officials (over the course of forty years) had actual and/or constructive notice of 

sexual assault, battery, molestation, and harassment committed by Dr. Strauss and the 

other sexual predators as described herein this Complaint.

259. Thus, the complaints of sexual abuse at Ohio State involving Dr. Strauss 

were not left unreported at the level of athletes and assistant coaches. Rather, the rampant 

sexual abuse and culture of sexual abuse was reported to head coaches of multiple sports, 

Ohio State administrators and to the head of the Athletic Department. But these officials 

turned a blind eye to the abuse.

260. Former wrestling head coach, Russell Hellickson, has publicly stated in 

2018 that it was widely known that Dr. Strauss was engaging in improper sexual 

behavior and that he reported this behavior to higher authorities within OSU, but OSU 

authorities did nothing.

261. OSU has failed and continues to fail to carry out its duties to investigate 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 41 of 47 PAGEID #: 171
Page 41

and take corrective action, or to make appropriate recommendations, under Title IX 

following the complaints of sexual assault, as described herein.

262. Despite the complaints and concerns conveyed by athletes and coaches to 

Defendant OSU and its agents and/or representatives, as described herein, sexual abuse 

and misconduct allegations went unaddressed, which violated reporting policies and 

procedures and Title IX and was done in a manner that displayed deliberate indifference 

to the sexual misconduct and abuse that was occurring.

263. The sheer scale of the abuse (involving nonathletes and student athletes 

from at least 14 sports) multiplied by the years it went on for (nearly 20 years) makes it 

implausible to suggest that Defendant OSU (through its agents and/or representatives) 

did not know of the endemic sexual abuse.

264. OSU acted with deliberate indifference by failing to respond to the 

allegations of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation in light of the known circumstances, 

Dr. Strauss’s conduct toward male athletes, and the scale of the abuse, which occurred 

both in private examination rooms and also publicly in the showers and training facilities 

by Dr. Strauss and the other sexual predators allowed to roam freely within Larkins Hall.

265. OSU failed to adequately supervise or otherwise ensure Dr. Strauss 

complied with Title IX and other state and federal laws even though OSU had gained 

actual knowledge that Dr. Strauss posed a substantial risk of additional sexual abuse of 

male students and student-athletes.

266. OSU’s deliberate indifference before, during, and after the sexual assault, 

battery, molestation, and harassment of Plaintiffs was in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 42 of 47 PAGEID #: 172
Page 42

§ 1681, et seq., and its regulations.

267. OSU’s failure to properly and appropriately investigate and take corrective 

action for the complaints of Dr. Strauss’s and other sexual predators’ sexual assault, 

battery, molestation, and harassment resulted in Plaintiffs being subject to further sexual 

assault, battery, molestation, harassment, and a sexually hostile environment.

268. OSU’s failure to promptly and appropriately investigate and remedy and 

respond to the sexual assaults after receiving notice subjected Plaintiffs to further sexual 

assault, battery, molestation, harassment, and a sexually hostile environment, effectively 

denying them access to educational opportunities at OSU, including appropriate medical 

care.

269. OSU’s failure to promptly and appropriately investigate and remedy and 

respond to the sexual assaults after receiving notice subjects Plaintiffs to harm and 

suffering today.

270. OSU has repeatedly failed to offer counseling services to current or former 

victims of Dr. Strauss, including Plaintiffs.

271. As a direct and proximate result of the OSU’s actions and inactions, 

Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer pain of mind and body, mental anguish, 

shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, 

loss of self- esteem, disgrace, fright, grief, humiliation, enjoyment of life, were 

prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities and 

obtaining the full enjoyment of life, have sustained and continue to sustain loss of 

earning and loss of earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 43 of 47 PAGEID #: 173
Page 43

expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

272. In subjecting Plaintiffs and the Class members to the wrongful treatment 

herein described, and through its violations of Title IX, OSU, in its effort to “save face” 

and avoid bad publicity, acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm Plaintiff 

and the Class members, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff and the Class members’ 

rights, so as to constitute malice and oppression. Plaintiff and the Class members are 

therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined 

by the court, against OSU, in a sum to be shown according to proof. 

273. Furthermore, Plaintiffs request the award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1988. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court will:

a. Enter judgment against Defendant in such amounts as will fully and

adequately compensate Plaintiffs for the damages they have suffered, in an amount to be

determined at trial;

b. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be

determined by a jury for Defendant’s violations of federal law;

c. Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

d. Award Plaintiffs their actual expenses of litigation, including

reasonable attorney’s fees;

e. Appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives;

f. Appoint Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the Class; and

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 44 of 47 PAGEID #: 174
Page 44

g. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just

and proper.

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Simina Vourlis

Simina Vourlis, 

The Law Office of Simina Vourlis

856 Pullman Way 

Columbus, OH 43212 

(614) 487-5900 

(614) 487-5901 fax 

svourlis@vourlislaw.com

Rex A. Sharp

Ryan C. Hudson

Scott B. Goodger

Larkin Walsh

Sarah T. Bradshaw

REX. A. SHARP, P.A.

5301 W. 75th Street

Prairie Village, KS 66208

(913) 901-0505

(913) 901-0419 fax

rsharp@midwest-law.com 

rhudson@midwest-law.com

sgoodger@midwest-law.com

lwalsh@midwest-law.com 

sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

Robert Allard

CORSIGLIA, MCMAHON AND ALLARD, 

LLP

96 North Third Street, Suite 620

San Jose, CA 95112

(408) 289-1417

(408) 289-8127 fax

rallard@cmalaw.net

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 45 of 47 PAGEID #: 175
Page 45

Jonathan Little

SAEED AND LITTLE, LLP

133 W. Market St. #189

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-721-9214

jon@sllawfirm.com

Stephen Estey

ESTEY & BOMBERGER LLP 

2869 India Street

San Diego, CA 92103 

619-295-0035

619-295-0172 fax

steve@estey-bomberger.com

Daniel R. Karon (#0069304) 

KARON LLC 

700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

Tel.: 216.622.1851 

dkaron@karonllc.com 

Joseph Sauder

SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC

555 Lancaster Avenue

Berwyn, PA 19312

(610) 200-0580

(610) 421-1326

jgs@sstriallawyers.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 46 of 47 PAGEID #: 176
Page 46

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed and 

served, via the Court’s CM/ECF system on October 26, 2018, on all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Simina Vourlis_________

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/26/18 Page: 47 of 47 PAGEID #: 177