NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0524n.06
Case No. 21

- 41 16 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DOE 195 , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY , Defendant

- Appellee , ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO O RDER

B efore : CLAY, GIBBONS, and M c KEAGUE , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM

. Between 1978 and 1998, Dr. Richard Strauss, a university physician and athletic team doctor at the Ohio State University, allegedly sexually abused hundreds of individuals under the guise of performing medical examinations. T he allegations did not become public until 2018 , following Ohio State’s commissioning of an independent investigation undertaken by the law firm Perkins Coie, which substa ntiated the allegations of abuse

. After the allegations became public, survivors of this abuse

— including Plaintiff in this case

— brought Title IX suits against Ohio State, alleging that Ohio State was deliberately indifferent to their heightened risk of ab use and that Ohio State actually concealed the abuse

. The district court found that Plaintiff’ s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed the action

. Plaintiff timely appeal ed

.No. 21

- 41 16 , John Doe 1 95 v. The Ohio State University

- 2

- Around the same time that the district court dismissed Plaintiff ’s claims, the district court also dismissed claims brought by other alleged survivors of Strauss’ abuse. See Garrett v. Ohio State Univ. , 561 F. Supp. 3d 747 (S.D. Ohio 2021); Ratliff v. Ohio State Univ. , No. 2:19

- cv - 4746, 2021 WL 7186198 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2021); Snyder

- Hill v. Ohio State Univ. , No. 2:18

- cv - 736, 2021 WL 7186148 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2021); Moxley v. Ohio State Univ. , No. 2:21

- cv - 3838, 2021 WL 7186269 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2021). The district court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ c laims were barred by the statute of limitations because the abuse happened more than two years ago, and the plaintiffs knew or had reason to know that they were injured at the time that the abuse occurred. See Garrett , 561 F. Supp. 3d at 754

– 62; Snyder

- Hi ll , 2021 WL 7186148, at *1; Moxley , 2021 WL 7186269, at *1. The district court dismissed Plaintiff ’ s claims in this case for the same reasons

. While Plaintiff ’ s appeal in this case was pending, this Court decided an appeal involving the lawsuits Snyder

- Hill v. Ohio State Univ ersity , No. 2:18

- cv - 736 (S.D. Ohio ) and Moxley v. Ohio State Univ ersity , No. 2:21

- cv - 3838 (S.D. Ohio). In Snyder

- Hil l, et al. v. Ohio State University , 48 F.4th 686 (6th Cir. 2022) , t his Court held that the plain tiffs adequately alleged that they did not know, and could not have reasonably known, that they were injured by Ohio State until 2018

. Accordingly, this Court held that the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims against Ohio State did not accrue until 2018, and that the claims therefore were not barred by the two

- year statute of limitations. Id. at 690, 705

– 06. On review of Plaintiff ’ s claims in this case , we conclude that the dis trict court’s judgment should be vacated and the action remanded so that the district court may consider in the first instance whether the statute of limitations bar s Plaintiff ’ s claims in light of this Court’s decision in Snyder

- Hill

. Accordingly, we VAC ATE the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff ’ s complaint and REMAND the matter for reconsideration in light of Snyder

- Hill.No. 21

- 41 16 , John Doe 1 95 v. The Ohio State University

- 3

- IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

____________________________________ Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk