Youngstown, Ohio School Hazing & Sexual Assault: Title IX, Institutional Liability, and Your Family’s Rights
If you are reading this at 2 a.m. because your child came home from a school trip changed — quieter, frightened, angry in ways that do not match the kid you put on that bus — you are in the right place. What happened to your child is not his fault. What the adults around him did with that information is something the law takes seriously. And the fact that you are here, searching, means the failure that started on that trip is about to meet someone who will not let it continue.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle hazing and sexual assault cases, and we currently litigate a $10 million hazing lawsuit against a university and fraternity in Harris County, Texas. That case — like the one filed in Youngstown — involves a young person betrayed by the institution that was supposed to protect him. We take cases in Ohio, working with local counsel where required, and we have spent more than 27 years building cases against institutions that failed the people in their care. What follows is everything we know about this specific case, the law that governs it, and what your family should do — and refuse to do — in the hours and days ahead.
What Happened at Ursuline High School: The Federal Complaint
A 200-page federal lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in September 2025. The complaint names Ursuline High School, the Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, the school’s principal, assistant principal, head football coach, other coaches, and 11 football players along with their parents. The lawsuit alleges that during a nine-day football camp trip in June 2025, multiple teammates assaulted a fellow player, recorded video of the assault, and distributed it through a Snapchat group — where it was saved and reshared. One image from that group, according to the complaint, showed a pair of underwear with the caption “RIP” followed by the victim’s name.
On day five of the trip, the complaint alleges, the victim’s mother spoke with one of the coaches about the abuse. The coach, according to the lawsuit, expressed no remorse or surprise — and said, “boys being boys.”
The Catholic Diocese of Youngstown released a public statement:
“The Diocese of Youngstown is aware of news reports regarding a lawsuit filed by one of our former Ursuline High School families. While detailed responses will only be made through the court process, the Diocese and Ursuline High School conducted a timely investigation, cooperated with the appropriate authorities, and took immediate actions to protect Ursuline High School students. No further statements will be made regarding this matter. Bishop Bonnar prays for peace and healing for all those involved.”
That statement is a controlled defense posture. It tells you three things: the institution acknowledges the lawsuit exists, it claims it handled the situation, and it has no intention of saying anything more in public. It does not admit fault. It does not acknowledge the specific allegations. And the phrase “conducted a timely investigation” is one of the most important sentences in the entire case — because if that investigation was inadequate, biased, or designed to minimize institutional exposure rather than protect students, the diocese’s own claim of having investigated creates a separate theory of liability called negligent undertaking.
Can You Sue a School for Hazing and Sexual Assault?
Yes — under multiple, overlapping legal theories. A school that takes your child on a nine-day trip owes that child a special duty of care. When the school fails in that duty, the law provides several paths to accountability: Title IX (federal civil rights), negligent supervision (state tort law), Ohio’s anti-hazing statute (Collin’s Law), intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and claims against the individual perpetrators and their parents. The case filed in Youngstown uses all of these together — and that is how a strong case is built.
Title IX: The Federal Law That Protects Students from Sexual Assault
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination — including sexual harassment and sexual assault — in educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. The Supreme Court has recognized a private right of action for student-on-student harassment where the institution exhibits deliberate indifference to known harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars access to education.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and assault, in educational programs receiving federal financial assistance, and the Supreme Court has recognized a private right of action for student-on-student harassment where the institution exhibits deliberate indifference to known harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars access to education.
Three elements determine whether a Title IX claim survives: the school must have had actual knowledge of the harassment, the harassment must have been severe and pervasive enough to deny the victim equal access to education, and the school must have responded with deliberate indifference — meaning its response was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.
The complaint filed in Youngstown alleges all three. The mother’s day-five report to the coach is the actual knowledge. The sexual assault, the recording, the distribution through Snapchat, and the “RIP” caption are the severity and pervasiveness. And the coach’s response — “boys being boys” — is the deliberate indifference. That three-word phrase is the single most devastating piece of evidence in this case, and we will come back to it.
One important threshold question: does Title IX apply to a private Catholic school? Title IX applies to educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Many private schools — including Catholic schools — receive some form of federal funding, whether through Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the National School Lunch Program, or other federal programs. If Ursuline High School receives any federal financial assistance, Title IX applies. This is a threshold question that must be confirmed early in the case, but the answer is often yes.
Ohio’s Collin’s Law: The State’s Anti-Hazing Framework
Ohio enacted Collin’s Law in 2021, significantly expanding the state’s anti-hazing framework. The law was named for Stone Foltz, a Bowling Green State University student who died as a result of a hazing incident. Collin’s Law created both criminal penalties and civil remedies for hazing that causes physical or mental harm. The law applies to schools, universities, and organizations that participate in hazing — and it covers the exact pattern alleged in the Ursuline complaint: a school-sponsored trip, multiple perpetrators acting together, and physical and psychological harm to the victim.
The civil remedy provisions of Collin’s Law give victims and their families a direct cause of action against those who participated in or facilitated the hazing. The criminal provisions create exposure for the perpetrators — and that criminal exposure is itself a source of settlement pressure in the civil case, because the institutional defendants know that a criminal investigation will uncover evidence that can be used against them in civil court.
The “Boys Being Boys” Response: Why Those Three Words Decide the Case
The lawsuit alleges that on day five of the nine-day trip, the victim’s mother spoke with a coach about the abuse. The coach, according to the complaint, expressed no remorse or surprise, and said, “boys being boys.”
Those three words are not a defense. They are a confession.
Under Title IX, deliberate indifference means the institution’s response was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. A coach who is told that a student on his team has been sexually assaulted by teammates — and who responds by calling it “boys being boys” — has just provided the plaintiff with direct, first-hand evidence of deliberate indifference. The school had actual knowledge (the mother reported it). The school responded (the coach dismissed it). And the response was clearly unreasonable (he called the sexual assault of a minor “boys being boys”).
This is the anchor of the entire liability narrative. At trial, the “boys being boys” quote goes in front of the jury on day one, and it stays there through closing arguments. It is the one piece of evidence that no amount of institutional deflection can reframe. A coach who is told a child was sexually assaulted and shrugs it off is not a coach who made a reasonable judgment call. He is an adult who was given the chance to protect a child and chose not to.
The Child Pornography Dimension: Permanent Digital Harm
The complaint alleges that multiple players recorded video of the assault and distributed it through a Snapchat group, where it was saved and reshared. One image, according to the complaint, showed a pair of underwear with the caption “RIP” followed by the victim’s name.
Federal law criminalizes the production and distribution of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. These are criminal provisions, but they establish the legal framework for civil claims arising from the same conduct — and they create mandatory criminal referral exposure for the perpetrators.
The child pornography dimension is what separates this case from an ordinary assault case. It creates a harm that is permanent and irremediable. Images cannot be fully retrieved from the internet. Once they are distributed, they may resurface — months, years, or decades later. The victim faces a lifetime of potential re-victimization, knowing that images of his assault exist digitally and may continue to circulate.
This creates extraordinary settlement pressure. The institutional defendants — the school and the diocese — know that the child pornography dimension brings criminal investigators into the picture, and that criminal investigators will uncover evidence that can be used in civil court. They also know that public exposure of the child pornography dimension creates reputational harm that no amount of public relations can contain. This is why the child pornography element is not just a damages multiplier — it is a settlement engine.
Who Can Be Held Liable: The Full Defendant Map
A case like this has multiple layers of defendants, each with a different role and a different source of accountability.
Ursuline High School (the operating entity) — owed a direct duty to protect students during a school-sponsored trip. The school failed to supervise students adequately, failed to monitor their conduct and social media activity, and failed to intervene after actual notice was given. The school also owed Title IX obligations if it receives federal financial assistance.
The Catholic Diocese of Youngstown (the oversight entity) — exercised institutional control over the school’s operations, policies, and personnel. The diocese held the school out as a diocesan institution, creating apparent agency. The diocese’s own public statement — claiming it “conducted a timely investigation” — creates a negligent undertaking theory: if the investigation was inadequate, biased, or designed to minimize institutional exposure rather than protect students, the diocese’s voluntary undertaking of the investigation creates liability.
The school principal and assistant principal — may face individual capacity liability for failure to protect students from foreseeable harm, negligent supervision and retention of coaching staff, and failure to respond adequately to reports of abuse.
The head football coach and other coaches — were directly responsible for supervising student-athletes during the trip. The coach who received the mother’s day-five report and allegedly responded “boys being boys” faces direct negligence claims, and his response constitutes evidence of deliberate indifference under Title IX. The coaches also may have failed in their mandatory reporting duties under Ohio law.
The 11 football players (the alleged perpetrators) — face direct intentional tort claims: assault, battery, sexual assault, hazing, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress. They also face the production and distribution of child pornography dimension.
The parents of the 11 football players — may face negligent supervision claims for their minor children’s conduct, and potential vicarious liability under Ohio’s parental responsibility statutes for willful and malicious acts of minors, as well as failure to monitor their children’s social media conduct.
Retaliation: What It Means and Why It Strengthens the Case
The plaintiff’s counsel has reported that after the lawsuit was filed, the victim’s mother received intimidating, retaliatory communications from another parent, and the victim received a negative communication from one of the players named in the suit.
Retaliation against a person exercising legal rights is itself actionable. Title IX also prohibits retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. And from a trial strategy perspective, retaliation is evidence of institutional culture — it shows that the community around the school is hostile to the victim’s exercise of legal rights, and that hostility is itself a form of the deliberate indifference that Title IX addresses.
For the family experiencing retaliation: document everything. Screenshot every message. Save every voicemail. Note the date, time, and content of every communication. Do not respond. Do not confront. Do not delete. Every act of retaliation is a piece of evidence that strengthens the case and supports punitive damages.
The Medicine of Sexual Assault Trauma in Minors
The injury in this case is not only physical. It is psychiatric, developmental, and — because of the Snapchat dimension — permanent. We handle child injury cases and we work with forensic psychologists who specialize in sexual assault trauma in minors. Here is what the science says.
Post-traumatic stress disorder is not a mood or a label. It is a formal medical diagnosis with eight separate requirements under the DSM-5, and a survivor has to meet every one of them: the traumatic event itself, the intrusive symptoms (nightmares, flashbacks, unwanted memories), the avoidance of reminders, the negative changes in cognition and mood, the alterations in arousal and reactivity (hypervigilance, exaggerated startle, sleep disturbance), symptoms lasting more than one month, functional impairment, and the symptoms not being attributable to substance use or another medical condition.
The DSM-5 also recognizes a “delayed expression” specifier — full criteria may not be met until six months or more after the event. This is critical for a minor: the child who seems “fine” in the weeks after the assault may develop full PTSD months later. The family needs to understand that delayed onset is normal, not a sign that the child is faking or that the trauma was minor.
In the largest epidemiological study of its kind, rape carried the highest conditional probability of producing PTSD of any traumatic event measured — more likely to cause lasting psychological injury than combat, than a car wreck, than a natural disaster. When a property owner or school ignores a known danger and a child is assaulted, the lifelong harm that follows is the most predictable outcome in trauma medicine.
One of the cruelest myths about sexual assault is that a “real” victim fights back. The science says the opposite: most survivors freeze. Tonic immobility — an involuntary, brainstem-mediated paralysis — was reported by 70% of rape survivors in one peer-reviewed study, with 48% reporting extreme tonic immobility. The ones who froze were not consenting. They were the ones the trauma hit hardest — they go on to suffer PTSD at nearly three times the rate of those who did not freeze.
Federal public-health researchers have estimated the lifetime cost of a single rape at more than $122,000 per survivor — and that figure, in 2014 dollars, only counts things you can put on an invoice: therapy, doctor visits, lost work. It does not begin to measure the nightmares, the relationships that strain, the doors a survivor cannot walk through alone. And it does not account for the child pornography dimension — the permanent, ongoing knowledge that images of the assault exist digitally and may resurface.
For a minor, the trauma occurs during critical developmental periods. It can affect educational outcomes, social development, future relationships, and earning capacity. A life-care plan for a minor sexual assault survivor with PTSD accounts for years of trauma-focused therapy, possible psychiatric medication, educational support, and the long arc of recovery — which, for some survivors, never fully completes.
Evidence Preservation: What Exists and How Fast It Disappears
If your family is in a situation like this, the single most urgent step is evidence preservation. The proof in this case is on a timer — and some of it is already dying.
Snapchat group chat records, images, videos, and metadata — This is the most critical and most perishable evidence. Snapchat server retention is limited, and user-deleted content may be unrecoverable within days to weeks. Legal preservation requests to Snapchat must be issued immediately. If the content is not formally preserved, it can vanish — and with it, the proof of who saw the assault, who recorded it, who distributed it, and when.
Communications between the victim’s mother and the coach on day five — These document actual notice to the school and the coach’s deliberate indifference. Text messages, call logs, and phone records can be deleted. Carrier records have limited retention windows. Obtain them before those windows expire.
School and diocese investigation records — The diocese claims it “conducted a timely investigation.” These records will reveal what the school knew, when, and whether the investigation was adequate or designed to minimize liability. Institutional documents may be selectively preserved or revised. A litigation hold must be issued immediately.
Retaliation communications — The intimidating messages sent to the mother and the victim after the lawsuit was filed are evidence of ongoing institutional hostility and support punitive damages. Ephemeral communications via text or social media can be deleted instantly. Screenshot and preserve them immediately.
Forensic imaging of the alleged perpetrators’ electronic devices — These may contain deleted Snapchat content, additional images or videos, group chat histories, and communications about the assault that perpetrators attempted to destroy. Evidence can be deliberately destroyed within days. Expedited discovery or law enforcement assistance for device seizure may be necessary.
Trip itineraries, supervision schedules, and room assignments — These establish who was responsible for supervising students at all times, identify gaps in supervision, and document the school’s duty-of-care structure. Institutional documents but may be updated or revised. Obtain original versions.
Coaches’ personnel files, training records, and prior complaints — These may reveal prior incidents, inadequate training on mandatory reporting and anti-hazing protocols, and prior disciplinary issues. Personnel records may be purged or reorganized. A litigation hold is essential.
School anti-hazing policies, handbooks, and training materials — These establish the standard of care the school set for itself. Failure to follow its own policies is powerful evidence of negligence. Obtain the version in effect at the time of the trip.
Statements and evidence from other alleged victims — The plaintiff’s counsel has stated that other individuals have come forward alleging different incidents of hazing and sexual violence at the school. This is pattern evidence — the single most powerful liability amplifier. Other victims’ memories degrade and statutes of limitations may be running. Interviews should be conducted promptly.
Law enforcement records and criminal investigation findings — The diocese states it “cooperated with appropriate authorities.” Police reports, CPS findings, and any criminal charges provide independent corroboration of the civil claims. Government records are generally preserved but access requires formal requests. File public records requests promptly.
The preservation letter is the first thing a lawyer sends. It goes to the school, the diocese, Snapchat, and every other entity that holds evidence. It orders them to freeze every record, every message, every image, every log — and it creates the legal consequence for destruction. If evidence disappears after a preservation letter is on file, the court can instruct the jury to assume the missing evidence was as bad as the plaintiff says. That is called an adverse-inference instruction, and it is one of the most powerful tools in civil litigation.
The Institutional Defense Playbook and Our Counters
Institutional defendants in hazing and sexual assault cases follow a predictable playbook. We know this because Lupe Peña, our associate attorney, spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like the reader. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. Here are the plays and the counters.
Play 1: “We investigated and took action.” The diocese’s public statement already deploys this defense. The counter: the investigation may have been inadequate, biased, or designed to minimize institutional exposure rather than protect students. The diocese’s own claim of having investigated creates a negligent undertaking theory — having voluntarily undertaken an investigation, the diocese is liable if the investigation was not conducted with reasonable care. Discovery will target the investigation’s scope, who conducted it, what they found, and what they did with their findings.
Play 2: “These were individual bad actors, not the institution.” The counter: the coach’s “boys being boys” response is not an individual lapse — it is evidence of institutional culture. When a coach dismisses the sexual assault of a minor as “boys being boys,” that is not one person’s mistake. That is what the institution taught him, allowed him, or trained him to think. And the reports from other alleged victims show this was not an isolated incident — it was a pattern the institution ignored.
Play 3: “We had no knowledge.” The counter: the mother reported the abuse on day five. The coach knew. And the reports from other alleged victims show the school had constructive notice of a culture of hazing and sexual violence long before this specific incident.
Play 4: “The victim participated voluntarily” or “it was roughhousing that went too far.” The counter: the law does not recognize consent to sexual assault. The law does not recognize “roughhousing” as a defense to hazing. And the Snapchat distribution of images of a minor is a federal crime — there is no version of “boys being boys” that makes producing and distributing child pornography acceptable.
Play 5: Retaliation and intimidation. The counter: retaliation is itself evidence of institutional hostility, supports punitive damages, and violates Title IX’s anti-retaliation provisions. Every act of retaliation is documented and preserved.
Play 6: Delay and denial. The counter: the federal forum is strategically advantageous. Title IX claims in federal court are governed by federal law rather than state damage limitations, and the federal court provides access to a broader jury pool. The diocese’s statement that “detailed responses will only be made through the court process” signals a controlled defense posture — and the way through a controlled defense is with overwhelming evidence and a trial date.
What a School Hazing Sexual Assault Case Is Worth
We are honest about case value. We do not promise a specific dollar amount, and we do not guarantee outcomes. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can do is explain the factors that drive value in a case like this.
Based on the specific factors present in the Ursuline complaint — sexual assault of a minor, production and distribution of child pornography during a school-sponsored trip, actual notice to coaching staff dismissed as “boys being boys,” institutional failure to protect, post-filing retaliation, and corroborating reports from other alleged victims creating pattern evidence — comparable institutional sexual assault and hazing cases have resulted in significant settlements and verdicts. The case value range in cases with this combination of factors typically falls between $3 million on the low end and $20 million or more on the high end.
Several factors push the value toward the higher end:
-
Title IX claims in federal court may avoid Ohio’s non-economic damage caps. Ohio imposes statutory caps on non-economic damages under its tort reform provisions, but these caps generally do not apply to intentional torts, civil rights claims under federal law, or claims involving felony-level conduct. Title IX claims in federal court are governed by federal law rather than state damage limitations.
-
The deliberate indifference standard, if met, supports significant compensatory and punitive awards. The coach’s “boys being boys” response is direct evidence of deliberate indifference — the kind of evidence that makes a jury angry and makes a defendant’s insurer nervous.
-
The child pornography element creates extraordinary settlement pressure. Criminal referral risk, reputational exposure, and the permanent and irremediable nature of the digital harm all push the defendant toward resolution rather than trial.
-
The pattern evidence from other alleged victims amplifies liability and punitive exposure. If the school had notice of a culture of hazing and sexual violence — and other victims’ reports establish that notice — the institution’s failure to act is not negligence. It is a choice.
-
The Catholic Diocese of Youngstown presents substantial collectibility as a deep-pocket institutional defendant with real estate holdings, insurance coverage, and financial assets — though northeastern Ohio dioceses have faced significant financial strain from prior clergy abuse settlements, which may affect available assets and insurance.
The economic damages in a case like this include psychiatric and psychological treatment costs, potential transfer to another school, future therapy and medication needs quantified through a life-care plan, and possible loss of future earning capacity if trauma affects educational outcomes. The non-economic damages include severe emotional distress, PTSD, depression, anxiety, loss of educational opportunity, social stigmatization, and the unique ongoing trauma of knowing images of the assault exist digitally and may resurface. Punitive damages are strongly supported by the coach’s “boys being boys” response, the school’s alleged failure to intervene despite actual notice, post-filing retaliation, and the pattern evidence from other alleged victims.
The First 72 Hours: What Your Family Should Do Now
If your child has been the victim of hazing or sexual assault at a school — whether at Ursuline or anywhere else — here is what you do and what you refuse to do.
Medical and psychological care comes first. Get your child to a qualified mental health professional who specializes in trauma. Do not let the school or its coaches be the ones recommending treatment. Understand that PTSD symptoms may not fully appear for weeks or months — the DSM-5 recognizes “delayed expression” where full criteria are not met until six months after the event. Your child may seem “fine” now and develop full symptoms later. That is normal, not a sign that the trauma was minor.
Preserve every piece of evidence. Screenshot and save every Snapchat communication, every text message, every email, every social media post related to the incident. Do not delete anything — even angry messages you wish you had not sent. Document every instance of retaliatory conduct with date, time, content, and the identity of the person who sent it. If your child has any physical evidence, preserve it.
Do not contact the school, coaches, or other parents without counsel. Do not let the school “investigate” without your lawyer present. Do not let your child be interviewed by school officials without your lawyer. Do not sign any release, waiver, or settlement offer from the school or its insurer. Do not accept the school’s version of events. Do not post about the incident on social media.
Contact a lawyer immediately. Snapchat evidence degrades within days to weeks. Other alleged victims’ memories degrade and statutes of limitations may be running. The school’s own investigation — which the diocese claims was “timely” — may be shaping the narrative in the institution’s favor. The preservation letter goes out the day you call. That letter is what stops the evidence from disappearing.
File police reports and contact child protective services if not already done. If school personnel failed to report the abuse as required by Ohio’s mandatory reporting laws, that failure is itself a violation that creates a negligence per se framework. A police report creates an independent record of the incident that does not depend on the school’s version of events.
How We Build the Proof
Here is how a case like this is actually built — from the first phone call through resolution.
The preservation demand goes out in week one. It goes to the school, the diocese, Snapchat, and every other entity that holds evidence. It freezes the Snapchat data, the communications, the investigation records, the personnel files, the trip records, the policies, and the retaliation evidence. Every record that the school or diocese might “update,” “revise,” or “lose” is now subject to a legal hold — and destroying it after that hold is on file creates sanctions and adverse-inference instructions.
The forensic imaging of the perpetrators’ devices follows — through expedited discovery or law enforcement assistance. Those devices may contain deleted Snapchat content, additional images, group chat histories, and communications about the assault that the perpetrators attempted to destroy.
The records demands come next — to the school, the diocese, the carriers, and the law enforcement agencies. We pull the investigation file, the coaches’ personnel records, the anti-hazing policies in effect at the time of the trip, the trip itineraries and supervision schedules, the police reports, the CPS findings, and any criminal charges.
The expert witnesses are retained: a forensic psychologist specializing in sexual assault trauma in minors, a school safety and hazing prevention expert to establish the standard of care, a digital forensics specialist to recover and authenticate the Snapchat evidence, and a life-care planner to quantify the long-term treatment needs.
The depositions follow — where the coach explains under oath what he meant by “boys being boys,” where the school administrators explain what their “timely investigation” actually consisted of, and where the diocese’s representatives explain how an institution that oversees a school where a child was sexually assaulted on a school trip came to claim it “took immediate actions to protect students.”
The discovery targets the school’s and diocese’s prior knowledge of hazing. The plaintiff’s counsel’s statement that other victims have come forward is the single most powerful liability amplifier — and discovery will target prior complaints, investigation records, disciplinary actions, and any patterns the institution ignored.
The number at the end is built from all of it — the medical records, the life-care plan, the forensic economist’s present-value calculation, the pattern evidence, the deliberate indifference, and the permanent digital harm. That number is not a guess. It is the arithmetic of what happened to your child and what the institution did about it.
Who Fights for You
Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is the managing partner of our firm and lead counsel in the active $10 million hazing lawsuit against a university and fraternity — a case that, like the one filed in Youngstown, involves a young person betrayed by the institution that was supposed to protect him. Ralph was a journalist before he was a lawyer, and he approaches every case the way a reporter approaches a story: find the facts, find the people who know what happened, and make the truth visible to a jury.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney who spent years inside a national defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like the reader. He knows how the other side values claims, how it selects IME doctors, how it runs surveillance, and how it uses delay tactics. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. Lupe is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
We are a trial firm that takes Ohio cases, working with local counsel and pro hac vice admission where required. We do not claim an office in Ohio. We do not invent credentials. What we bring is the experience of building cases against institutions that failed the people in their care — and the willingness to take those cases to trial when the institution will not do the right thing.
We work on contingency. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And we have 24/7 live staff — not an answering service — because the moment a family needs us is rarely during business hours.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a school for hazing and sexual assault?
Yes. A school that takes your child on a trip owes that child a special duty of care. When the school fails in that duty — by failing to supervise, failing to intervene after notice, or dismissing reports of abuse — the law provides multiple paths to accountability: Title IX, negligent supervision, Ohio’s anti-hazing law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and claims against the individual perpetrators and their parents.
Does Title IX apply to private Catholic schools?
Title IX applies to educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Many private schools — including Catholic schools — receive some form of federal funding through Title I, IDEA, the school lunch program, or other federal programs. If the school receives any federal financial assistance, Title IX applies. This is a threshold question that must be confirmed early in the case.
What is Ohio’s Collin’s Law and how does it help my case?
Collin’s Law is Ohio’s anti-hazing statute, enacted in 2021 after the death of Stone Foltz at Bowling Green State University. It creates both criminal penalties and civil remedies for hazing that causes physical or mental harm. The law applies to schools and organizations that participate in hazing, and it covers the pattern alleged in the Ursuline complaint: a school-sponsored trip, multiple perpetrators acting together, and physical and psychological harm to the victim.
How long do I have to file a hazing lawsuit in Ohio?
Ohio’s general personal injury statute of limitations runs two years. However, claims involving minors are typically tolled — meaning the clock does not start running until the victim reaches the age of majority. The specific tolling rule for the claims in this complaint should be confirmed with an attorney in Ohio, but the minor’s age may extend the filing window significantly. Do not assume you have missed the deadline — and do not assume you have plenty of time. The evidence dies faster than the deadline.
What if the school says they already investigated?
The diocese’s public statement claims it “conducted a timely investigation.” This creates a negligent undertaking theory: having voluntarily undertaken an investigation, the diocese may be liable if the investigation was inadequate, biased, or designed to minimize institutional exposure rather than protect students. Discovery will target the investigation’s scope, who conducted it, what they found, and what they did with their findings. An institution that investigates itself is not the same as an institution that was investigated.
Can the coaches be held personally liable?
Yes. Coaches who were directly responsible for supervising students during the trip face direct negligence claims. The coach who allegedly responded “boys being boys” to a report of sexual assault faces individual capacity liability for failure to protect, deliberate indifference under Title IX, and potential failure to fulfill mandatory reporting duties under Ohio law.
What happens to the students who participated in the hazing?
The 11 football players named in the complaint face direct intentional tort claims — assault, battery, sexual assault, hazing, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress. The production and distribution of images of the assault through Snapchat creates separate criminal liability under federal child pornography laws. Their parents may face negligent supervision claims and potential vicarious liability under Ohio’s parental responsibility statutes.
Is the Snapchat evidence considered child pornography?
Federal law criminalizes the production and distribution of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. If the Snapchat content shows a minor in sexually explicit conduct — and the complaint alleges it does — the production and distribution of that content is a federal crime. These are criminal provisions, but they establish the legal framework for civil claims arising from the same conduct and create mandatory criminal referral exposure for the perpetrators. The civil case uses the criminal framework as leverage.
What if we are experiencing retaliation for reporting?
Retaliation against a person exercising legal rights is itself actionable. Title IX also prohibits retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Document every instance — screenshot every message, save every voicemail, note the date, time, and content of every communication. Do not respond. Do not confront. Do not delete. Every act of retaliation is evidence that strengthens the case and supports punitive damages.
How much is a school hazing sexual assault case worth?
We do not promise a specific dollar amount, and past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Based on the factors present in the Ursuline complaint — sexual assault of a minor, child pornography production and distribution, actual notice dismissed as “boys being boys,” institutional failure to protect, post-filing retaliation, and pattern evidence from other alleged victims — comparable cases have resulted in significant settlements and verdicts, with case values typically ranging from $3 million to $20 million or more. Title IX claims in federal court may avoid Ohio’s non-economic damage caps, and the deliberate indifference standard, if met, supports significant compensatory and punitive awards.
What should our family do right now?
Get your child to a qualified mental health professional. Preserve every piece of evidence — screenshot every Snapchat communication, save every text and email, document every act of retaliation. Do not contact the school, coaches, or other parents without counsel. Do not sign anything. Do not let the school interview your child without your lawyer. File police reports and contact CPS if not already done. And call a lawyer immediately — because Snapchat evidence degrades within days to weeks, and the preservation letter is the only thing that stops it from disappearing.
Will this case go to trial or settle?
No one can predict whether a specific case will settle or go to trial. What we can tell you is that the factors present in this case — the child pornography dimension, the criminal referral risk, the reputational exposure for the diocese, the pattern evidence from other alleged victims, and the coach’s “boys being boys” admission — all create extraordinary settlement pressure. Institutional defendants in cases with these factors often choose to resolve the case rather than face a jury. But the willingness to take a case to trial is what creates the settlement pressure in the first place — and a firm that is not willing to try the case will not get the best settlement.
Why This Matters Beyond Your Family
The plaintiff’s counsel has stated that other individuals have come forward alleging different incidents of hazing and sexual violence at the school. If that is true — and the pattern evidence supports it — then what happened to this family’s son was not an isolated incident. It was part of a culture. And the only way a culture changes is when one family stands up and says: not again.
Every family that comes forward protects the next child. Every lawsuit filed tells the institution that “boys being boys” is not a defense — it is an admission. Every preservation letter sent freezes the evidence before it can disappear. And every verdict or settlement reached tells the next school, the next diocese, the next coach that the cost of looking the other way is higher than the cost of doing the right thing.
Your family did not ask for this fight. But you are in it. And the law gives you tools to win it.
Call Us
The call is free. The consultation is confidential. We have 24/7 live staff — not an answering service. We do not get paid unless we win your case. Contact us at 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). Hablamos Español.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. But if your child was hurt by the people who were supposed to protect him, the conversation starts here — and it starts today.