NAWL joins NWLC Amicus in Ohio State University (6th Cir.)

Isabell Retamoza • March 18, 2024

UPDATE: SEP 2022 -- The Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in September 2022. OSU then asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision. This morning, the Supreme Court declined to hear the cases, which locks in the survivors’ victory in the Sixth Circuit. We are so glad that the plaintiffs will be allowed to continue their Title IX lawsuits!


As a reminder, the plaintiffs are 118 former OSU male students, including student-athletes, who filed suit against OSU regarding their sexual abuse by Dr. Richard Strauss during the 1970s-1990s. However, a district court in Ohio dismissed their Title IX claims as untimely, ruling they should have sued OSU within 2 years of the abuse or of their last day at OSU. Last week, the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that they did not know and could not reasonably have known that OSU had injured them until 2018, when OSU announced it was hiring a firm to investigate Dr. Richard Strauss for alleged sexual abuse. In support of its decision, the Sixth Circuit cited our amicus brief, which noted that “recognizing abuse—especially physician-patient abuse—can be even harder in the context of college athletics because of the insular nature of teams, the immense trust and authority placed in coaches, and the culture of college athletics, including the role of coaches and trainers in setting norms” (page 26).

DETAILS -- In January 2022, NAWL joined the National Women's Law Center ("NWLC") in an amicus brief to the 6th Circuit in support of OSU male athletes sexual abuse survivors. DETAILS -- The National Women’s Law Center and our law firm partner Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP invite you to join an amicus brief to the Sixth Circuit in support of two groups of Ohio State University male athletes who were sexually abused by Dr. Richard Strauss in Moxley v. Ohio State University and Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State University. A district court in Ohio recently dismissed the athletes’ Title IX claims as untimely, ruling they should have brought this lawsuit within 2 years of when they were abused (1978-1998) or when they graduated from or dropped out of OSU. The court rejected the athletes’ arguments that they did not understand that they had been sexually abused and that OSU had been deliberately indifferent to their abuse until 2018-2019, when allegations of OSU’s coverup surfaced in the press and independent investigators determined that Strauss’s procedures were medically inappropriate and unnecessary.

 

Our amicus brief explains that sexual assault is pervasive, especially on college campuses, and that failure to recognize sexual abuse is also a pervasive and insidious problem. College athletes are often especially vulnerable to being subjected to sexual abuse and failing to recognize it as such because of the intense love and trust they hold for their institutions; their dependence on their institutions for scholarships and other support; the power and authority wielded by team coaches and doctors; and the culture of “toughness” that encourages minimization and normalization of discomfort and harassment.

April 2, 2025
Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic
March 26, 2025
Bar Organizations’ Statement in Support of the Rule of Law CHICAGO, March 26, 2025 — We the undersigned bar organizations stand together with and in support of the American Bar Association to defend the rule of law and reject efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession. In particular, as outlined by the ABA: We endorse the sentiments expressed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, “[w]ithin the past year we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” We support the right of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged. We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice in this manner. We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard and seen must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession. There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers in private practice from Main Street to Wall Street, as well as those in corporations and who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. If lawyers do not speak, who will speak for our judges? Who will protect our bedrock of justice? If we do not speak now, when will we speak? Now is the time. That is why we stand together with the ABA in support of the rule of law. American Bar Association Alameda County (California) Bar Association Alexandria (Virginia) Bar Association Allegheny County Bar Association (Pennsylvania) Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers Bar Association of Erie County (New York) Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis Berks County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association Boston Bar Association Boulder County (Colorado) Bar Association Chicago Bar Association Chicago Council of Lawyers Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association Columbus (Ohio) Bar Association Connecticut Bar Association Contra Costa (California) County Bar Association Detroit Bar Association and Foundation Erie County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association First Judicial District Bar Association (Colorado) Hennepin County (Minnesota) Bar Association Hispanic National Bar Association Hudson County (New Jersey) Bar Association Illinois State Bar Association Kansas Bar Association Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Foundation Lawyers Club of San Diego Long Beach (California) Bar Association Louisville Bar Association Maine State Bar Association Middlesex County (New Jersey) Bar Association Milwaukee Bar Association Minnesota State Bar Association Monroe County (New York) Bar Association Nassau County (New York) Bar Association National Asian Pacific American Bar Association National Association of Women Lawyers National Conference of Bar Presidents National LGBTQ+ Bar Association National Native American Bar Association New Jersey Women Lawyers Association New Mexico Black Lawyers Association New York City Bar Association New York County Lawyers Association North County (California) Bar Association Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar Passaic County (New Jersey) Bar Association Philadelphia Bar Association Queens County (New York) Bar Association Ramsey County (Minnesota) Bar Association San Diego County Bar Association San Fernando Valley (California) Bar Association Santa Clara County Bar Association (California) South Asian Bar Association of North America State Bar of New Mexico Virgin Islands Bar Association Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association Worcester County (Massachusetts) Bar Association
A group of women hold a banner that reads
January 17, 2025
January 17, 2025 The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) applauds President Biden's declaration recognizing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as "the law of the land," which represents a victory for the countless advocates who have tirelessly championed gender equality. NAWL has been a steadfast supporter of ratification of the ERA since it was first introduced and was one of the first national organizations to endorse it. NAWL was present for its first reading at the National Women’s Conference in 1923 and subsequently printed the proposed Amendment in the Women Lawyers Journal that same year. When Congress finally passed the amendment in 1972, the campaign for ratification by the states became NAWL’s major project for the following decade. In 2020, NAWL issued its Resolution in Support of the Ratification of the ERA to the United States Constitution, committing to continue its advocacy. For over a century, the ERA has symbolized the fight for gender equality. As NAWL member Marguerite Rawalt poignantly noted in the Women Lawyers Journal in 1971, “Equal justice does not exist for women under the Constitution as interpreted to date. They are the one remaining ‘class’ and category not yet adjudged to come under the legal umbrella of the Constitution.” We will continue to work to fulfill the promise of equal justice for all citizens, regardless of sex and gender status.
More Posts