Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, 

John Doe 4, on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

The Ohio State University, 

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 1 of 23 PAGEID #: 1
Page 2

1. The Ohio State University is preeminent undergraduate and graduate 

research university and a perennial athletic powerhouse. 

2. Today, in 2018,1 Ohio States’ 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 (and until 

recently, buried) chapter in its storied history, a chapter during which its campus became 

a “cesspool of deviancy” and its doctor and assistant professor, Dr. Richard Strauss 

sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed potentially thousands of its 

students. 

5. Throughout all times alleged in this Complaint, Dr. Strauss was employed 

by Defendant Ohio State University (“OSU”) to provide medical care and treatment to 

 

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 #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 2 of 23 PAGEID #: 2
Page 3

OSU’s students and student-athletes. He was also employed as an assistant professor of 

medicine.

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

the authority and legitimacy of OSU. He was not only a medical doctor—he was OSU’s

official medical doctor.

7. 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 OSU.

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

battery, molestation, and/or harassment, OSU failed to take appropriate action (or, in fact, 

any action whatsoever) to stop or prevent Dr. Strauss from continuing his rampant sexual 

misconduct. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the

previous paragraphs.

10. 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.

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

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

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 3 of 23 PAGEID #: 3
Page 4

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

PARTIES

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

paragraphs.

14. Plaintiff John Doe 1 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s varsity wrestling team. He was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an examination in the 1990s.

15. Plaintiff John Doe 2 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s varsity wrestling team. He was first abused by Dr. Strauss when he was 

14 years old, and he was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. 

Strauss during approximately 50 examinations by Dr. Strauss in the late 1980s and 1990s.

16. Plaintiff John Doe 3 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s varsity wrestling team. He was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an examination in the 1990s.

17. Plaintiff John Doe 4 is a resident of the State of Ohio and a former studentathlete on OSU’s varsity wrestling team. He was sexually assaulted, battered, molested, 

and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during multiple physical examinations and in the locker 

room of Larkins Hall on the campus of Ohio State University in the 1990s.

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

all 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 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 4 of 23 PAGEID #: 4
Page 5

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

19. OSU 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.

20. Dr. Strauss was employed by OSU until he retired in 1998. 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 student athletes during his 20-

year tenure at Ohio State. 

21. To many at OSU, Dr. Strauss was known simply as “Doc.” The student 

athletes, however, had a different nickname for Dr. Strauss: “Dr. Jelly Paws.” Dr. Strauss 

earned the nickname from his notoriously hands-on physical examinations.

22. 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. 

23. 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 

things I ever did.”2

 

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/jim-jordan-harassment-ohio-state-wrestling699192. (last visited July 16, 2018).

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 5 of 23 PAGEID #: 5
Page 6

24. 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

25. Student athletes also pleaded with the university administration to make 

changes to Larkins Hall to protect student athletes. 

26. 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, 

including that of Dr. Strauss. 

27. 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. 

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

29. But OSU did nothing. 

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

requested. 

 

3

Id.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 6 of 23 PAGEID #: 6
Page 7

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

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

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

took his own life. 

34. Dr. Strauss thrived in the “cesspool of deviancy” at Larkins Hall. Like 

many sexual predators, once he selected his prey, he took steps to groom them for abuse. 

35. He 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.”

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

athletes naked. 

37. 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.

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

his examination room.

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

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

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

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 7 of 23 PAGEID #: 7
Page 8

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.

41. 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.

42. One 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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?”

 

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-sexuallyassaulted-twice-by-former-team-doctor-richard-strauss/ (last visiting July 16, 2018).

5

 Id.

6

Id.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 8 of 23 PAGEID #: 8
Page 9

“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

 

46. 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

47. Indeed, OSU fed student-athletes to Dr. Strauss, and they were powerless 

to stop him. 

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

OSU, scholarships which were contingent on playing by the school’s rules, including 

the requirement to undergo physical examinations by Dr. Strauss.

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

examinations required by Ohio State. 

50. He treated student-athletes for everything from heartburn to sprained 

ankles. 

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

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

 

7

 Id.

8

 Id.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 9 of 23 PAGEID #: 9
Page 10

frequently included digital anal penetration under the guise of checking for hernias.

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

53. One former student athlete, an All-American wrestler in the 1990s, said 

he constantly did a calculation before deciding whether to see Dr. Strauss: “Is this injury 

bad enough that I’m going to get molested for it?”9

54. OSU forced student athletes to make a chilling decision: either seek 

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

with illness of injury. 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.

55. They 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 OSU forced them to make with themselves. 

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

sexual predator.

57. In 1978—Dr. Strauss’s first year at OSU—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. 

 

9 The Associated Press, Ex-Athletes Say Ohio State Doc Groped, Ogled Men for Years, The 

New York Times (July 6, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/07/06/us/ap-usohio-state-team-doctor.html (last visited on July 16, 2018).

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 10 of 23 PAGEID #: 10
Page 11

58. The doctor shrugged him off. Ohio State did nothing. 

59. More complaints poured in over the years. 

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

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.

61. 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

62. 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

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

hearing on Dr. Strauss in or around the spring of 1997.12

64. Upon information and belief, OSU took no legal or disciplinary action 

against Dr. Strauss as a result of the hearing.

 

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-conservativessticking-jordan-over-abuse-allegations-but-others/769402002/. (last visited July 16, 

2018).

11

 Id.

12 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-sexuallyassaulted-twice-by-former-team-doctor-richard-strauss/. (last visiting July 16, 2018).

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 11 of 23 PAGEID #: 11
Page 12

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

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

66. 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.

67. The Classes consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of men throughout the 

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.

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

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

factual pattern involving the Defendant’s misconduct. 

69. 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). 

70. 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 owed a legal duty to the members of the Class 

under federal and/or state law? 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 12 of 23 PAGEID #: 12
Page 13

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

c. Whether Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

d. Whether Defendant displayed deliberate indifference to the sexual 

abuse, assaults, and discrimination at Ohio State? 

e. Whether Defendant had knowledge or knew that Richard Strauss 

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

student-athletes?

f. Whether Plaintiffs were damaged by the violations caused by 

Defendants?

71. 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 

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.

72. 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. 

73. 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.

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 13 of 23 PAGEID #: 13
Page 14

the other members of the Class. 

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

individualized, but those can be managed separately. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count One

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

76. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs.

77. 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....”

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

a school’s education programs and activities.

79. 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.”

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

81. 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.

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 14 of 23 PAGEID #: 14
Page 15

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

and assault by employees, students, and third parties.

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

doctor and assistant medical professor of OSU.

84. 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.

85. 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.

86. 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.

87. 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 and former head wrestling coach Russell Hellickson, 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.

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 15 of 23 PAGEID #: 15
Page 16

were not left unreported at the level of the coaches. Rather, the rampant sexual abuse 

and culture of sexual abuse was reported to Ohio State administrators and to the head of 

the Athletic Department. But these officials turned a blind eye to the abuse.

89. 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 they 

did nothing.

90. OSU failed to carry out its duties to investigate and take corrective action, 

or to make appropriate recommendations, under Title IX following the complaints of 

sexual assault, as described herein.

91. 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.

92. The sheer scale of the abuse (involving 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.

93. 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 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 16 of 23 PAGEID #: 16
Page 17

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.

94. 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.

95. 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. 

§ 1681, et seq.

96. 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.

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

respond to the sexual assaults after they received 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.

98. OSU failed to offer counseling services to current or former victims of Dr.

Strauss, including Plaintiffs.

99. 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, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 17 of 23 PAGEID #: 17
Page 18

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, and have sustained and continue to sustain loss of 

earning and loss of earning capacity.

Count Two 

Violation of Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

100. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs.

101. Plaintiffs enjoy protections under the Fourteenth Amendment of the 

United States Constitution.

102. Plaintiffs enjoy the constitutionally protected Due Process right to be free 

from the invasion of bodily integrity through sexual assault, battery, molestation, and 

harassment under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

103. At all times pertinent hereto, Ohio State and its employees, agents, and/or 

representatives were acting under color of law, to wit, under color of statutes, ordinances, 

regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the Ohio State University and State of Ohio. 

104. The acts as alleged throughout this Complaint demonstrate a violation of 

these constitutionally protected rights, which were clearly established at the time of the 

acts and of which reasonable persons in the Defendant’s position knew or should have 

known.

105. Defendant had, at all times pertinent hereto, the ultimate responsibility and 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 18 of 23 PAGEID #: 18
Page 19

authority to train and supervise its employees, agents, and representatives, in the 

appropriate manner of preventing, detecting, and reporting sexual abuse, assault, and 

molestation and as a matter of custom, policy, and/or practice failed to do so with 

deliberate indifference.

106. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Ohio State acted in a supervisory 

role to Dr. Strauss, who was employed by Ohio State as a athletics team doctor and as 

an assistant medical professor.

107. By failing to prevent the repeated sexual assaults, abuse, and molestation 

upon Plaintiffs, and by failing to appropriately respond to numerous reports of Dr.

Strauss’s sexual assault, abuse, and molestation in a manner that was so clearly 

unreasonable it amounted to deliberate indifference, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

108. Defendant is also liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

maintaining customs, policies, and practices that deprived Plaintiffs of rights secured by 

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 

1983.

109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and/or 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, and have sustained and continue to sustain loss of 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 19 of 23 PAGEID #: 19
Page 20

earning and loss of earning capacity.

110. In the alternative, the actions or inactions of Defendant were so reckless 

as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury would result to 

Plaintiffs and constitutes gross negligence that is the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' 

damages. 

111. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer pain and suffering, pain of 

mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, 

embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, fright, grief, humiliation, loss of 

enjoyment of life, post-traumatic stress disorder resulting in physically manifested 

injuries including anxiety, depressions, sleep disorders, nightmares, psychological 

injuries, and physical injuries. Plaintiffs were prevented and will continue to be 

prevented from performing Plaintiffs' daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment 

of life, and have sustained and continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity.

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

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 20 of 23 PAGEID #: 20
Page 21

reasonable attorney’s fees;

e. Appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives;

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

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

just and proper.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 21 of 23 PAGEID #: 21
Page 22

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

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 

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

Jonathan Little

SAEED AND LITTLE, LLP

1433 N. Meridian St.

Indianapolis, IN 46202

317-721-9214

jon@sllawfirm.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 22 of 23 PAGEID #: 22
Page 23

Stephen Estey

ESTEY & BOMBERGER LLP 

2869 India Street

San Diego, CA 92103 

619-295-0035

619-295-0172 fax

steve@estey-bomberger.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/16/18 Page: 23 of 23 PAGEID #: 23