In the case of Arocho v. Ohio Univ., 2022-Ohio-4835, the court of claims dismissed a fifteen-year-old high school student’s lawsuit alleging that a university failed to supervise a university police officer who engaged in sexual harassment toward the high school student and, therefore failed to protect the high school student from such alleged sexual harassment despite the university having notice that the police officer was under investigation by children services because the university’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
In this case, the student argued that the university was required to immediately terminate the police officer upon notice of the children services investigation. In response, the university argued that the police officer was entitled to the rights under the university’s policies and applicable bargaining agreement provisions, as well as notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that the police officer was immediately placed on leave as soon as receiving notice of the children services investigation. The court agreed with the university.
In support of its decision in favor of the university, the court explained that, while the university “had a duty to investigate and take further action to protect [the high school student] from possible further harm by” the police officer upon notice of the children services investigation, the university’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances because:
“[A]s soon as the [u]niversity received notice of the allegations it (1) commenced its own police department investigation; (2) interviewed [the police officer]; (3) investigated [the police officer’s] computer; and, within a few days of the commencement of its investigation, (4) placed [the police officer] on administrative leave; (5) confiscated [the police officer’s] badge and gun; (6) barred [the police officer] from the [u]niversity property; and (7) eventually terminated [the police officer’s] employment.”
2022-Ohio-4835 at ¶ 10.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.