Ohio Sex Abuse Lawsuits

Victims of sexual abuse or assault in Ohio have the legal right to file civil lawsuits and compensation for their injuries. Victims can sue not just their abuser, but also third parties such as schools, churches or organizations that enabled the abuse to occur or covered it up.

In this post, we will provide an overview of sexual abuse lawsuits in Ohio. We will explain the statute of limitations for Ohio sex abuse lawsuits and their potential settlement value. If you have an Ohio sex abuse case, contact us today for a free online consultation or call 800-553-8082.

Ohio Sex Abuse Lawsuit News and Updates

November 11, 2024: We are certainly seeming more lawsuits against hotels for overlooking sexual abuse. In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a woman seeks damages from major hotel chains, including Marriott International, Hilton Worldwide, and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, for their alleged role in facilitating her trafficking, exploitation, and abuse as a minor.

The suit, filed under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the Child Abuse Victims’ Rights Act (CAVRA), accuses these hotel operators of financially benefiting from trafficking activities conducted on their premises. Her lawsuit alleges that the Defendants’ branded properties, where she was trafficked, profited from room rentals despite having the oversight mechanisms to prevent such criminal activities.

November 8, 2024:  In a new hotel sex trafficking lawsuit filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, a plaintiff identified as K.S. claims that Red Roof Inns enabled her sex trafficking by allowing traffickers to repeatedly rent rooms at one of its Grand Rapids locations.

The complaint states that from 2008 to 2015, traffickers held K.S. captive, forcing her to engage in commercial sex acts within the hotel, where she was allegedly raped multiple times per day. That is seven years, a really long time for no one to notice.  The plaintiff says the Red Roof’s staff observed numerous indicators of trafficking, including physical abuse, malnutrition, and a constant influx of male visitors to her room. And they did nothing.

The lawsuit alleges that Red Roof Inns financially benefited from K.S.’s trafficking, profiting from room and Wi-Fi charges directly linked to these illegal activities. The complaint also alleges the problem is systemic.  Red Roof Inns has a longstanding awareness of the connection between the hotel industry and trafficking. Red Roof continued to permit cash payments, isolated rooms, and other practices that traffickers rely on to evade law enforcement. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, aiming to hold Red Roof accountable for allegedly enabling and profiting from her prolonged exploitation.

October 5, 2024:  A man studying to become a priest at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary and School of Theology in Mount Washington was sentenced to five years of probation and six months in a lockdown sex offender treatment program after being found in possession of disturbing videos showing child sexual abuse. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to possessing child sexually abusive material. The judge imposed strict conditions for his probation, including ongoing treatment, location monitoring, and restrictions on internet access and contact with children.

September 3, 2024: A Dayton Law Review student presents a compelling case for abolishing Ohio’s civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims.

The article uses the story of one victim who endured decades of flashbacks and PTSD without recalling the cause to underscore the premise. This victim finally recovered memories of being sexually assaulted by a Catholic priest through Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing therapy. However, due to Ohio’s statute of limitations, he is barred from seeking legal recourse.

August 19, 2024:  The Toledo Catholic Diocese has agreed to a $1 million settlement for three victims of sexual abuse by Michael Zacharias, a former pastor who was sentenced to life in prison for sex trafficking minors and adults. The abuse began when the victims were students at St. Catherine’s School in Toledo, where Zacharias was a seminary student.

August 15, 2024: Today,  in Doe v. Cuyahoga County Community College, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss filed by dance instructors at Cuyahoga County Community College (Tri-C). The case centers around allegations brought by John Doe, a former student in the Tri-C Creative Arts Academy, who claimed he was sexually assaulted by a dance instructor, who had a known history of sexual misconduct involving minors. The plaintiff alleged that various Tri-C officials, including human resources personnel and the academy director, were aware of the instructor’s past but failed to take necessary actions to protect students.

Specifically, the sexual assault complaint outlines that the instructor, who had previously worked at the Cleveland School of the Arts (CSA), had been accused of multiple incidents of sexual misconduct dating back to 2002. Despite these allegations, including a 2015 background check that flagged these issues, the instructor was hired by Tri-C, where he eventually assaulted John Doe. The lawsuit claims that the responsible Tri-C employees acted negligently and recklessly by ignoring the warning signs and allowing the instructor to continue working closely with minors, leading to the assault on the plaintiff.

The court ruled that under Ohio’s liberal notice-pleading standard, the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The decision allows the case to proceed to trial, where the claims of negligent hiring, failure to protect, and intentional infliction of emotional distress will be further examined. The court emphasized that while the allegations were sufficient to move forward, the ruling does not speak to the ultimate merits of the case.

July 15, 2024: Almost every successful sex abuse settlement in Ohio involves a third-party defendant because these cases often reveal that institutions or organizations may share responsibility for the abuse that occurred. In many instances, the perpetrator may have been affiliated with a school, religious institution, or other organizations that had a duty to protect the victims.

When these institutions fail to implement proper safeguards, conduct adequate background checks, or provide effective supervision and training, they may be held liable for their negligence. Under Ohio law, an employer’s liability regarding the hiring, supervision, or training of an employee is based on the employee having committed an act considered wrongful by law. In cases of negligent supervision and negligent training which is what you mostly see in sex abuse lawsuits, the employee is individually liable for sexual abuse and their is a separate  or is found to have wronged a third party, who then seeks compensation from the employer.

June 4, 2024:  A lawsuit was filed in federal court on Monday by “Jane Doe” against the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District (CHUH), and its Board of Education (CHUH BOE).

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to appropriately investigate and address sex-based harassment and assaults, violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and Ohio Revised Codes.

The plaintiff claims that during the 2021-2022 academic year, while she was a 6th grader at Roxboro Middle School, she was assaulted multiple times by another student, John Doe. Despite reporting these incidents to school officials, including a punch to the genital area causing vaginal bleeding, threats, and attempts to pull down her pants, the school failed to take effective action. As a result, Jane Doe experienced ongoing anxiety, insomnia, and abnormal vaginal bleeding, leading her to transfer to another school.

The lawsuit contends that CHUH and its officials showed deliberate indifference to the sexual harassment and assaults, failed to provide a safe educational environment, and did not comply with Title IX requirements.

May 2, 2024:  In a recently filed lawsuit, a plaintiff, who was kidnapped and trafficked at just fifteen years old, alleged that Red Roof Inns profited from her trafficking through room rentals and Wi-Fi data used by her traffickers. She claims the hotel failed to adopt policies to detect and prevent human trafficking, despite clear signs such as frequent cash payments for rooms, and obvious signs of illegal drug use and sex trafficking.

The complaint suggests that the hotel staff had multiple opportunities to recognize the telltale signs of sex trafficking but failed to act. It details several obvious red flags that should have been apparent to the hotel employees, including:

• Payments for room stays made in cash.
• Extended stays being paid day-by-day.
• Requests for rooms isolated from other guests.
• Signs of illegal drug use.
• Frequent requests for new linens.
• A high volume of male visitors to her room were known to the front desk as being associated with her and her trafficker.
• Loitering and soliciting activities on hotel grounds.

The plaintiff also alleges that the hotel’s Wi-Fi was used by her trafficker to post advertisements for her, as part of the sex trafficking operation. She argues that Red Roof Inns profited from the rooms rented by her traffickers and from collecting data from the Wi-Fi usage, without implementing any company-wide policies to detect or prevent suspected human trafficking activities at their properties. This failure, she contends, constituted a violation of the TVPRA, as the defendants should have known that their commercial venture was part of an illegal activity.

Red Rood tried to get the case dismissed, an effort that was shot down by an Ohio federal court judge. The court denied the defendants’ motion allowing the lawsuit to proceed under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the Child Abuse Victim’s Rights Act (CAVRA).

April 1, 2024: A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that Red Roof Inns cannot evade a sex trafficking lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley determined that there were sufficient allegations indicating that the hotel chain not only knowingly profited from the victimization but also actively participated in ventures that violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).

One plaintiff recounts being trafficked across multiple Red Roof properties in states like New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, among others. She alleges that hotel staff ignored numerous red flags indicating trafficking activities, including frequent linen changes, a high number of used condoms, and signs of physical abuse.

Furthermore, it is claimed that traffickers exploited the hotel’s Wi-Fi to advertise this woman’s services. Despite these clear indicators, staff reportedly failed to take action to ensure her safety, even when guests heard her screams for help during a room inspection and no police were called.

Judge Marbley’s ruling underscored that the victims’ allegations met the TVPRA’s requirements for a lawsuit to proceed. Specifically, the judge noted that this sex trafficking lawsuit alleges that Red Roof Inns had at least constructive knowledge of the trafficking based on the overall circumstances, indicating a pattern of conduct or a tacit agreement with traffickers.

What is Sexual Abuse in Ohio?

The legal definition of sexual abuse or sexual assault in Ohio is essentially the same as it is in every other state. Sexual abuse is defined as intentional “sexual touching” without consent. There are 2 components to this definition: (1) sexual touching, and (2) lack of consent.

Sexual touching is basically and type of contact or touching of another person’s sexual organs with intent and for the purpose of sexual gratification. Accidentally touching a woman’s breasts in the elevator does not count. Intentionally groping her breasts does.

The other key element that makes something qualify as sexual abuse is the lack of consent. If the sexual touching is done without consent it is automatically abuse or assault. Minors (anyone under the age of 18) lack the legal capacity to give consent, which means any sexual touching by an adult with a minor is necessarily considered sexual abuse.

Who Can Be Held Liable for Sexual Abuse in Ohio?

Sexual abuse victims can always sue the individual person that abused them. Usually, however, suing the abusers is somewhat pointless because you won’t be able to get any money from them. Chances are they are either broke, dead or in jail.

The key to getting compensation in sex abuse lawsuit is finding a company, school, or other third party with deep pockets (or insurance) to hold liable for negligence. Ohio law allows abuse victims to file civil lawsuits against third-parties who were negligent in failing to prevent or stop the abuse. Common third-party defendants in sex abuse civil lawsuits include schools, churches, or organizations such as the boy scouts. If you can show that the one of these organizations had a duty to prevent or stop the abuse and failed to do so, they can be held legally liable for damages.

For example, if a teacher abused you at your school, the school could potentially be liable for negligently failing to stop the abuse or investigate prior complaints against the teacher. Also, if you were sexually abused or assaulted in a dimly lit parking lot, you could sue the parking lot owner for negligent security.

Ohio Juvenile Detention Center Sex Abuse Lawsuits

Recent civil lawsuits and investigations have revealed that sexual abuse of inmates at Ohio juvenile detention centers has been a major problem for decades. A growing number of former juvenile inmates in Ohio are now seeking justice by filing civil sex abuse lawsuits against the state and the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS).

ODYS operates three primary juvenile detention and correctional facilities across the state:

• Cuyahoga Hills JCF – Highland Hills, OH
• Indian River JCF – Massillon, OH
• Circleville JCF – Circleville, OH

Ohio, like many other states, has a dark history of sexual abuse of juvenile inmates in its correctional facilities that goes back decades. A number of high-profile lawsuits, federal investigations, and criminal prosecutions have highlighted the fact that sexual abuse is a major problem within the Ohio juvenile correctional system.

Anyone who was the victim of sexual abuse or assault while they were a juvenile inmate in Ohio has the right to file a juvenile detention center sex abuse lawsuit against ODYS. A large number of victims have already come forward and filed lawsuits against ODYS and the state claiming that they were negligent in failing to protect juvenile inmates from sexual abuse and assault.

Ohio Residential Treatment Sex Abuse Lawsuits

Ohio sex abuse attorneys have recently gained a greater understanding of the incredible scope of abuse that occurs in residential treatment facilities.  The trigger for this greater understanding—and new lawsuits—was troubling reports of abuse and neglect at several Ohio residential treatment facilities, with allegations centered on mistreatment of children and adolescents in facilities meant to provide therapeutic care.  And it makes sense: these children are vulnerable and easy targets for predators.  On top of that, you have for-profit healthcare providers putting profits over patient safety.

These cases focus on facilities operated by major behavioral health organizations, including Universal Health Services (UHS) and Acadia Healthcare, which are alleged to have failed in their duty to protect vulnerable young residents. The complaints detail claims of unsafe conditions, inadequate staffing, and lack of oversight, asserting that systemic failures enabled widespread abuse and neglect. Lawyers argue that the treatment facilities prioritized profits over the welfare of the children in their care, creating environments that allowed harm to continue unchecked.

Residential treatment facilities facing scrutiny in Ohio include:

1. Foundations for Living (Mansfield) – Run by UHS, this facility for children and adolescents has been linked to serious allegations of neglect and abusive practices, including inadequate supervision and unsafe conditions. Reports indicate that the facility’s staff may lack adequate training, compromising the safety and wellbeing of residents.
2. Ohio Hospital for Psychiatry (Columbus) – Also operated by UHS, this psychiatric hospital has faced multiple allegations of misconduct involving the care of young people with severe mental health issues. Claims include inappropriate use of restraints, neglect in treatment plans, and insufficient measures to prevent physical and emotional harm.

These Ohio facilities are part of a larger national trend of understanding the cesspool of sexual abuse at residential treatment centers. So other facilities across the state are potential sites of concern due to similar allegations of mistreatment in comparable institutions. Other large residential treatment facilities in Ohio that may come under scrutiny in the future include:

• Cleveland Christian Home (Cleveland) – Known for serving at-risk youth, Cleveland Christian Home has historically faced challenges related to staffing and oversight.
• Crossroads Health (Cincinnati) – A mental health facility that provides services for children and families, Crossroads Health has a reputation for dealing with severe cases but has also received mixed reviews regarding its residential care practices.
• New Directions (Cleveland) – Specializing in addiction treatment for adolescents, this facility has seen past complaints regarding its supervision practices and staff training. Complaints like this and sexual abuse often travel together.
• Hannah Neil Center for Children (Columbus) – Known for intensive behavioral health treatment for children, Hannah Neil has faced scrutiny in the past for its use of disciplinary methods and the adequacy of staff qualifications.
• Bellefaire JCB (Shaker Heights) – A longstanding facility offering a range of residential and outpatient services for youth, Bellefaire JCB has been involved in past allegations related to the adequacy of its supervision and safety measures for residents.

The overarching aim of these lawsuits is to hold these institutions accountable for alleged failures and to prompt much-needed reforms across the industry. Attorneys for the victims are advocating not only for compensation for the children who suffered but also for a transformation of these treatment systems to ensure young residents in Ohio and beyond are afforded safety, respect, and proper care.

Statute of Limitations for Ohio Sex Abuse Lawsuits

Ohio’s statute of limitations for civil lawsuits involving child sexual abuse is longer than it is for cases in which the abuse which was an adult. When the sexual abuse occurred when the victim was a minor (under 18) they have until their 30^th birthday to file a civil sex abuse lawsuit (O.R.C. 2305.111). The period for adult victims of rape and sexual assault is much shorter. According to O.R.C. 2305.111(B)(1), adult victims have one year to sue a known abuser.

Efforts to Change the Statute of Limitations for Sex Abuse in Ohio

Ohio’s state legislature is currently considering a new law (Ohio H.B. 124) that would extend the statute of limitations for civil sexual abuse lawsuits. Under the proposed new law, the SOL for victims of child sexual abuse would be extended another 25 years. So instead of their 30^th birthday, abuse victims would have until their 55^th birthday to file a civil lawsuit.

Efforts to reform laws related to childhood sexual abuse have gained momentum in Ohio, driven by concerns over the inadequate protection of victims. Lawmakers have proposed several bills aimed at enhancing child protection, including a ban on sexual grooming and extending the statute of limitations for civil claims against abusers and those who enabled them.

But the progress is so slow. Four of the five bills remain stalled in House committees, including the critical legislation to extend the statute of limitations to age 55 for civil claims. Ohio’s current laws have been criticized for being among the most restrictive in the nation, limiting the time victims have to seek justice.

Advocates argue convincingly that the existing statute of limitations protects powerful institutions more than it does victims, particularly when those institutions have a history of shielding abusers. Efforts to extend the statute of limitations have faced significant opposition, often due to concerns about the financial implications for organizations that could be held liable for past abuses.  Other jurisdictions have managed this problem quiet well when they have created a path to justice for child molestation and it would be the same in Ohio.

Despite the challenges, there is hope that public pressure and growing awareness will lead to meaningful legal reforms. Advocates believe that continued efforts and increased public support are essential to change Ohio’s laws to better protect victims and hold abusers and enablers accountable.

Priest Sexual Abuse Lawsuits in Ohio

A still growing number of lawsuits have been filed against Catholic dioceses in Ohio alleging sexual abuse by priests and other clergy members. These lawsuits seek accountability and restitution for survivors who claim they were abused as children while under the care of trusted church officials.

This litigation has been fueled in part by the disclosure of internal diocesan records naming 225 priests and clergy with credible accusations of child sexual abuse across Ohio’s six dioceses, from Cincinnati to Steubenville. While Ohio’s current statute of limitations restricts some survivors from pursuing legal action, the recent legislative proposals we discuss above could really change the landscape.

In response to mounting public pressure and a growing demand for accountability, Ohio’s six Catholic dioceses have disclosed the names of priests and other clergy members with credible allegations of child sexual abuse. This transparency effort follows nationwide scrutiny of the Catholic Church’s handling of sexual abuse and the release of similar lists across the United States. In Ohio, these revelations expose the widespread nature of abuse and its historical prevalence, with cases dating back to the 1950s. Alleged abuse took place across a wide range of settings, including parishes, schools, and other church-operated institutions, impacting thousands of individuals and communities.

This is a breakdown by diocese, detailing the number of accused:

1. Archdiocese of Cincinnati – 67 accused priests and clergy members
2. Diocese of Columbus – 53 accused priests and clergy members
3. Diocese of Youngstown – 36 accused priests and clergy members
4. Diocese of Cleveland – 25 accused priests and clergy members
5. Diocese of Toledo – 25 accused priests and clergy members
6. Diocese of Steubenville – 19 accused priests and clergy members

How were so many priests accused of sexual abuse and they still kept their jobs?  Priest abuse lawsuits often focus on allegations that dioceses knowingly allowed priests with credible accusations of abuse to continue serving in positions where they had access to minors. Claims often cite the “priest shuffling” practice, in which accused clergy were tragically transferred to different parishes rather than removed from ministry, allowing them to pick up the abuse elsewhere knowing the Church had their back.

These disclosures underscore the scale and depth of abuse allegations within Ohio’s Catholic institutions. The Archdiocese of Cincinnati, as the largest in the state, lists the highest number of accused individuals, with allegations stretching back to the mid-20th century. Similarly, the Diocese of Columbus, with over 50 names on its list, faces scrutiny for the long duration over which abuse reportedly took place.

Additional Patterns and Limitations in Disclosures

While these lists represent an effort to bring transparency, experts in clergy abuse cases note several concerning patterns. Reports indicate that some clergy were transferred between parishes even after allegations were known, an issue that survivor advocates believe contributed to prolonged abuse. The practice, known informally as “priest shuffling,” has been heavily criticized and remains a point of contention in Ohio. Legal experts and advocacy groups have called for independent investigations and external audits of church records to ensure full accountability.

Additionally, survivor advocates argue that even the term “credible accusation” is ambiguous, as it allows each diocese discretion in determining whether a claim meets their internal threshold. Many clergy abuse survivors express frustration with the Catholic Church’s lack of a uniform, transparent standard for reporting abuse and for classifying allegations as credible.

Ohio Sex Abuse Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

Successful plaintiffs in an Ohio sexual abuse lawsuit are eligible to receive the same range of damages as plaintiffs in typical tort cases. These include medical expenses, lost wages or potential earnings, and emotional distress.

Sexual abuse claims in Ohio that (1) get past the statute of limitations, and (2) have a deep pocket defendant, often yield substantial average settlement amounts. Juries are deeply moved by accounts of child sexual abuse and bleeds into the settlement compensation sexual abuse victims received. So you frequently see significant, although usually confidential settlement payouts with substantial awards for pain and suffering.

One factor that drives settlement is third-party defendants in sexual abuse cases, such as schools and churches, are motivated to settle to avoid adverse publicity and safeguard their public reputation. This added incentive often leads third-party defendants to offer larger settlement sums to expedite case resolution.

Example Ohio Sex Abuse Verdicts and Settlements

Below are some example Ohio sex abuse settlement amounts and jury payouts.  Why are these amounts so low?  The best Ohio sex abuse lawsuits settle.  These are most cases that have gone to trial.

• $575,000 Verdict: A 20-year-old female brought a lawsuit against her stepfather, alleging that he sexually abused her when she was a minor. The verdict included $75,000 in compensatory damages (pain and suffering) and $500,000 for punitive damages. No third parties were sued in this case so presumably the stepfather was wealthy and had the financial resources to pay for this award.
• $50,000 Verdict: An 8-year-old female suffered emotional distress when she was sexually assaulted over a period of five years by the male defendant, her stepfather. The defendant denied all allegations. The minor’s two sisters, ages 13 and 11, were also assaulted and were awarded $20,000 each.
• $192,728 Verdict: A 21-year-old female suffered long-term psychological impairment as a result of sexual abuse by the defendant, her stepfather, that began when the plaintiff was six years old and continued through her early teenage years. The defendant disputed the plaintiff’s charges and contended that the plaintiff fabricated the allegations due to her poor relationship with the defendant.
• $155,000 Verdict: The plaintiff, who was developmentally disabled, suffered sexual molestation and post-traumatic stress disorder while she attended the t school. The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to properly hire, train, and supervise its employees with access to minor students, that the defendants failed to provide reasonable supervision to ensure the safety of the minor children entrusted to their care, and failed to prevent the sexual abuse of their students.
• $10,000 Verdict: The plaintiff alleged that 2 Cincinnati police officers sexually assaulted her after “escorting” her back to her apartment when she became intoxicated at a bar. She alleged that after the sexual assault, the officers repeatedly contacted and threatened her.
• $300,000 Settlement: A female plaintiff suffered sexual assault when the male defendant doctor, while they were at work, kissed and fondled her, exposed himself, and attempted to force her to perform fellatio on him. The plaintiff contended that the defendant attempted to force her into a non-consensual sex act and terminated her employment when she refused.

Contact Us About Ohio Sex Abuse Lawsuits

If you were the victim of sexual abuse and want to file a sex abuse lawsuit in Ohio, contact us today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.