Under Oregon law, anyone who has been the victim of sexual abuse or assault can file a civil lawsuit against not just the person who abused them but also against churches, schools, or other third parties who negligently enabled the abuse to happen. This post will look at the basic elements of a sex abuse lawsuit in Oregon. We will also analyze the potential settlement value of Oregon sex abuse lawsuits.
We also provide the latest news and updates on Oregon sex abuse lawsuits.
How is Sexual Abuse Defined in Oregon?
Sexual abuse and sexual assault are defined in Oregon as any deliberate or intentional sexual touching or contact without the other individual’s consent, motivated by sexual gratification, arousal, or humiliation. In the context of a civil lawsuit, sex abuse or assault is often referred to as “sexual battery.”
To meet the criteria of sexual abuse or “sexual battery,” two key elements must be present. First, the sexual touching must be intentional. Instances where one unintentionally touches a person’s breast or genitals, such as in a crowded elevator or while attempting to prevent a fall, lack the requisite intent to qualify as sexual battery.
The second crucial element is the absence of consent. For intentional sexual touching to be deemed sexual abuse, it must occur without consent. Under Oregon law, individuals under 18 years of age are incapable of providing consent for sexual touching. This means that any sexual interaction with a minor by an adult is automatically classified as sexual battery. So even if a 16 year-old fully consents and enthusiastically participates in sexual activities with a 25-year-old, those activities meet the definition of sexual abuse because that 16-year-old lacks the legal capacity to give that consent.
When Can Victims Sue for Sexual Abuse?
Sexual abuse or assault is both a criminal and civil offense in Oregon. This means that sex abuse victims have the right to press criminal charges and/or file a civil lawsuit and seek financial compensation. Anyone who has been the victim of sexual abuse or assault can file a lawsuit.
Sex abuse victims can file a civil lawsuit regardless of whether the abuser was ever criminally charged or convicted. In fact, victims can file a civil lawsuit even if they never reported it to the police and even if they never told anyone about the incident.
The evidentiary burden for proving sexual battery in a civil case is much lower than the burden in a criminal case. This means it is much easier for a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit to prove that the sexual abuse or assault occurred. So even if an abuser escapes criminal justice, they can still be held accountable in a civil court.
Statute of Limitations for Civil Sex Abuse Lawsuits
In Oregon, the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits involving child sex abuse is governed by ORS 12.117. This statute establishes specific time limits for bringing claims based on conduct that constitutes child abuse.
Key Provisions of ORS 12.117
- Extended Time Limits: Under ORS 12.117(1), a person who was the victim of child abuse has until they reach the age of 40 to file a civil lawsuit. This extended period recognizes the unique nature of child abuse cases and the potential delays in understanding and processing the trauma associated with such abuse.
- Discovery Rule: The statute also includes a discovery rule, which allows the victim to file a claim within five years of the date they discovered, or should have reasonably discovered, the connection between their injuries and the abuse. This provision helps ensure that victims who may not immediately realize the full impact of the abuse still have an opportunity to seek legal recourse. As we discuss in a moment, Oregon courts will give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on summary judgment if there is a dispute of fact of when the plaintiff linked the abuse to their injuries.
- Application: The “notwithstanding” clause in ORS 12.117(1) explicitly overrides other limitations statutes, such as ORS 12.115 (general statute of ultimate repose), making the specific provisions in ORS 12.117 applicable even if the general time limits would otherwise bar the action.
The Discovery Rule in Sex Abuse Claims in Oregon
In Schmidt v. Mt. Angel Abbey, which we talk about more below in the case law section, the court articulated how it looked at the discovery rule in sex abuse lawsuits.
The discovery rule, as applied in cases involving child abuse, delays the start of the statute of limitations until the plaintiff is aware or reasonably should have been aware of the harm and its causal connection to the defendant’s actions.
The plaintiff in Schmidt contended that under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations should begin from the date of this realization, making his lawsuit timely. The defendant argued that the plaintiff knew of the abuse and its effects much earlier, which meant the statute of limitations had expired before he filed his lawsuit. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff’s awareness of the abuse itself should have been sufficient to start the limitations period.
The Oregon Supreme Court analyzed whether the plaintiff had adequate knowledge of the abuse and its associated harm at the time of the incident, or if he only became fully aware of its impact later on. The court ultimately concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding when the plaintiff reasonably should have discovered the harm and its connection to the defendant’s conduct.
Holding Organizations Liable in Oregon Sex Abuse Lawsuits
In a sex abuse lawsuit, the individual who committed the sexual abuse or assault will always have direct liability and can be named as a defendant. The only problem with suing the abuser is that unless they are rich they probably don’t have the financial resources to pay a big settlement or verdict. For that reason alone, suing the individual abuser is often a pointless endeavor.
The way to get compensation in a sex abuse lawsuit is to sue a third-party organization like a school, church, or company. Schools, churches and other institutional third-parties can be held liable in sex abuse lawsuits based on negligence. If the third-party negligently failed to prevent the abuse (or covered it up) then they can be held liable. Below are some common examples of the types of negligence claims that can be asserted against third-party defendants in sex abuse cases:
- Not properly screening employees for history of sexual misconduct
- Ignoring red flags or warning signs about misconduct
- Disregarding or failing to investigate complaints
- Concealing or ignoring evidence of sexual misconduct
Here is an example of how third parties can be held liable in sex abuse civil lawsuits. Late’s say Stacy was sexually abused by her public school teacher Mr. Smith. Stacy never told anyone about the abuse, but the school had previously received several complaints about Mr. Smith’s inappropriate conduct and they never bothered to investigate. Stacy can file a sex abuse lawsuit against the school for negligence.
Oregon Juvenile Correctional Facility Sex Abuse Lawsuits
The Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) is an administrative agency of the state of Oregon that is responsible for operating the state’s juvenile detention and correctional facilities. OYA currently has a total of 9 facilities across the state. Five of them are “correctional” facilities or detention centers and the other four are “youth transitional facilities” or camps. Combined, these facilities host about 500 juvenile offenders at any given time.
Recent investigations and lawsuits have revealed that juvenile offenders in Oregon correctional facilities have been subjected to widespread sexual abuse while in custody. A report released by the U.S. Department of Justice found that several Oregon juvenile detention centers had abnormally high rates of inmate sexual abuse. A subsequent investigation by the DOJ into these facilities found that the reported rates of inmate sexual abuse had actually increased since the first investigation.
Juvenile inmates in all of the OYA detention centers are at risk of sexual abuse, but there are several facilities in Oregon that have been hotspots for inmate sexual abuse:
- McLaren Youth Correctional Facility – Woodburn, OR
- Hillcrest Youth Correctional Facility – Salem, OR (closed)
- Oak Creek Youth Correctional Facility – Albany, OR
Victims of sexual abuse at Oregon youth correctional centers are now filing juvenile detention center sex abuse lawsuits and getting financial compensation.
Oregon Sexual Abuse Settlements and Verdicts
Sexual abuse and assault cases, particularly those involving clergy and other institutions, have led to numerous settlements and verdicts in Oregon over the years.
These examples illustrate the range of compensation awarded to survivors, reflecting the severity and impact of the abuse, as well as the legal and institutional contexts. However, it is important to remember that each case is unique, with its own specific circumstances and factors influencing the outcome. Our attorneys think this list helps provide a general understanding of how such lawsuits are valued. But you cannot use similar cases to precisely calculate the exact settlement amount for any individual case.
- $3,500,000 Verdict: A pair of former students claimed that they were sexually abused by their former elementary school principal, Jeffrey Hays. Hays was convicted on 6 counts of child sexual abuse and sentenced to over 40 years in prison. Hays was principal at Deep Creek Elementary School in Damascus from 2005 to 2009, when he moved to Hillsboro schools, to serve as executive director at the City View Center Charter School until 2018.
- $4,000,000 Settlement: The Archdiocese of Portland settled claims brought by 8 victims who alleged that they were sexually abused as children in the 1970s and 1980s. The abuser was Rev. Pius Brazauskas and most of the victims were former altar boys when the acts of abuse occurred.
- $3,500,000 Settlement: The lawsuit alleged that a school district failed to stop predatory behavior by teacher and coach Kyle Jarred Wroblewski, who abused Doe when she was 16. Despite being aware of Wroblewski’s conduct for over a decade, the district took no action until his arrest when the Superintendent was informed of Wroblewski’s behavior but did nothing.. Wroblewski, who pleaded guilty to sexual abuse charges, had a history of complaints that were not adequately addressed by the district. The $3.5 million settlement in 2024 was paid by the school district’s insurance company.
- $665,000 Settlement: Plaintiffs are four children who were sexually molested by the teenage son of the head deacon at the defendant church. The plaintiffs contended during discovery they learned the church had several warnings the perpetrator was emotionally disturbed and had a perverse interest in young children. Specifically, a teacher’s diary was discovered in which she related that one mother had complained the perpetrator had followed her daughters to the bathroom. They contended it was also learned the perpetrator’s father (who as head deacon was in charge of security at the church) knew his son had attempted to molest a child at his home.
- $4,300,000 Verdict: 14-year-old boy scout suffered emotional distress after he was sexually molested by the 62-year-old defendant scoutmaster, who was a repeat sexual offender. The plaintiff named the scoutmaster, the Boy Scouts of America, and the local scouting council as co-defendants. The plaintiff contended that the defendant scoutmaster coerced him into performing homosexual acts on a scout camping trip. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant council had failed to investigate prior reports and complaints alleging sexual molestation by the defendant scoutmaster. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant council failed to void the defendant individual’s scoutmaster status and registration with the boy scouts, failed to adequately foresee that the individual would continue to molest scouts, failed to adequately supervise the plaintiff on the outing, and failed to notify the boy scout national headquarters of the complaints against the defendant scoutmaster.
- $654,570 Settlement: The plaintiff suffered withdrawal, depression, anxiety, loss of appetite, and behavioral changes after she was sexually molested on a daily basis for about one year at a private day care center she attended. The abuse occurred when she was 6 years old.
- $40,000 Verdict: A 26-year-old female alleged that she suffered sexual molestation and emotional distress inflicted by the male defendant, who was involved in an intimate relationship with her nonparty sister. The plaintiff contended that the defendant intentionally molested her while she was asleep and was incapable of consenting to the sexual contact, and that his actions resulted in her emotional distress and a loss in the quality of life.
Oregon Sex Abuse News & Updates
September 26, 2024: A two-year investigation led by Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden revealed systemic abuse and neglect in youth residential treatment facilities funded largely by our taxpayer dollars. The report focused on four major operators—Universal Health Services (UHS), Acadia Healthcare, Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health, and Vivant Behavioral Healthcare.
The conclusions are disturbing. The investigation found that children in these facilities were horribly mistreated. The frequently experienced physical, sexual, and verbal abuse.
Obviously, the reasons for this awful care are multifactorial. But the investigation and common sense point to a profit-driven model that prioritizes cost-cutting over providing adequate care.
August 10, 2024: A lawsuit has been filed in federal court in Eugene by a former juvenile inmate who alleges violations of his Eighth Amendment rights due to cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of Oregon Youth Authority employees.
The plaintiff claims that during his time at the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility, he was subjected to coercive sexual relationships initiated by two OYA employees. One staff member allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with the plaintiff over a ten-month period, while another staff member facilitated this misconduct by failing to report it. Subsequently, a Qualified Mental Health Professional (QMHP), who was a licensed clinical social worker, was assigned to provide the plaintiff with mental health care after the abuse.
Incredibly, instead of offering the needed support, the social worker allegedly groomed the plaintiff for a sexual relationship. The plaintiff further contends that detention center officials neglected to enforce policies intended to prevent such abuse, allowing these violations to occur.
July 10, 2024: In a new lawsuit filed on Monday in an Oregon federal court, a flight attendant from California, accuses Horizon Air Industries, Inc., a Washington-based company and subsidiary of Alaska Air Group, of allowing a hostile work environment characterized by severe sexual harassment by male pilots.
Her sexual harassment and sexual assault lawsuit alleges that from September 2023 to February 2024, the plaintiff endured repeated and severe sexual harassment, including inappropriate messages and sexual assault by two pilots.
Despite reporting the harassment to Horizon Air’s human resources in December 2023, the company allegedly took no protective action and insinuated that the plaintiff was at fault. The harassment continued, causing significant emotional distress and leading the plaintiff to report the matter to the police and take a leave of absence by March 2024.
The lawsuit claims that Horizon Air’s failure to address the harassment violated ORS 659A.030 by creating a sexually hostile work environment and effectively forcing the plaintiff to leave her position due to intolerable working conditions.
The plaintiff seeks non-economic and punitive damages, attorney fees, and an injunction against Horizon Air to prevent further unlawful practices. Additionally, the plaintiff requests a jury trial and reserves the right to amend the complaint as more evidence is obtained. The total punitive damages requested cannot exceed $50 million or 1% of Alaska Air Group’s net worth, whichever is less.
June 2, 2024: The St. Helens School District in Oregon has agreed to a 3.5 million settlement in a civil rights lawsuit filed by a former student. The lawsuit alleged that school officials failed to protect female students from predatory abuse by Kyle Wroblewski, a teacher and track coach, who was arrested in 2018 for sexually abusing the student.
Wroblewski’s abuse spanned over a decade, beginning when the victim was 15 years old. Despite multiple warnings and disciplinary actions dating back to 2008, including a three-day suspension in 2009, the district retained Wroblewski. He continued to abuse students until his arrest, which resulted in a 50-month jail sentence and a requirement to register as a sex offender.
This could not be a more classic case of a predator who left every possible clue he was a predator, and those clues were summarily ignored. Kyle Wroblewski began his teaching career at Springfield High School in 1998, where he met his future wife, then a 17-year-old student. If that does not raise red flags, I’m not sure what will.
He stayed at it. In 2005, a female student accused Wroblewski of inappropriate behavior. No action was taken by SHHS or the district. In December 2007, another student reported sexual comments and inappropriate touching by Wroblewski, leading to an investigation. The findings were summarized in a “Conference Letter,” and Wroblewski received a “Letter of Directive” outlining the district’s expectations for his conduct, including no physical contact with students.
Of course, that stopped nothing. By July 2008, more than twenty students reported misconduct, including an incident where Wroblewski was seen massaging a female student’s hamstring and groin. SHHS Principal Nanette Hagen recommended his termination to Superintendent Patricia Adams, who did not follow through.
In April 2009, after more incidents, Hagen formally reprimanded Wroblewski, suspended him for three days (later somehow reduced to one), and relieved him of his coaching duties, although it is unclear if this was enforced. Despite further restrictions and a list of expectations sent by Adams in May 2009, there was no follow-up to ensure compliance.
In 2015, Superintendent Scot Stockwell was informed of Wroblewski’s history of inappropriate behavior and concerns about inadequate supervision but did not take action. This prolonged failure to address Wroblewski’s misconduct allowed him to continue his predatory behavior for over a decade until his arrest.
Wroblewski was found to have sexually harassed and abused at least 20 female students from 2005 to 2015. The lawsuit accused the district of violating the former student’s civil rights and displaying reckless indifference to student safety. The settlement is, as it should be, the largest ever paid by a public school district in a sex abuse lawsuit in Oregon.
March 27, 2024: Sexual assault survivors face numerous challenges, not only from the assault itself but also in accessing essential medical care. One major issue is the shortage of trained sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs) in rural areas like Northeast Oregon. Hospitals in these regions often lack the necessary staff, forcing victims to travel long distances for a forensic exam. This can deter survivors from pursuing legal action, allowing perpetrators to go unpunished.
Efforts are underway to train more SANEs, but progress is slow due to the overall nursing shortage and the challenges of recruiting for this specialized role. Some hospitals are collaborating with local nonprofits to help survivors access services, but gaps in care remain. The Oregon Sexual Assault Task Force is advocating for more funding and support to address these shortages and ensure that survivors can receive compassionate, trauma-informed care closer to home.
January 20, 2024: An inmate at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility (CCCF) has filed a federal lawsuit alleging retaliation by prison staff following accusations of sexual assault by a former correctional officer. The lawsuit claims the officer sexually assaulted the inmate multiple times after moving them to a cell without a camera. After reporting the abuse, the inmate faced ongoing retaliation, including denial of basic necessities and medical care, and false disciplinary actions. The lawsuit names 14 other CCCF and Oregon Department of Corrections employees, alleging some were aware of the abuse but did not intervene. The inmate seeks compensation and to be moved to a different facility, along with restrictions on contact with specific staff members.
Key Oregon Sex Abuse and Assault Case Law
These are some of the key appellate opinion that shape sexual abuse lawsuits in Oregon:
Sherman v. State, 368 Or. 403 (2021)
The the Oregon Supreme Court addressed whether a child abuse claim against the Department of Human Services (DHS) was barred by the state’s statute of ultimate repose. The plaintiff, who had experienced abuse while in foster care, sued DHS, alleging that the department negligently failed to protect her. DHS argued that it was immune from liability under the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA) because the claim was time-barred by the general statute of ultimate repose for negligence claims (ORS 12.115).
The Oregon high court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the statute specifically applicable to child abuse claims (ORS 12.117) should apply instead of ORS 12.115. The court determined that ORS 12.117 provides an exception to the ultimate repose statute for child abuse claims, allowing such claims to be brought before the victim turns 40 years old or within five years of discovering the connection between the abuse and injury. The court ruled that this exception applies to claims against public bodies under the OTCA, rejecting the state’s argument that ORS 30.275(9) (a two-year statute of limitations) supersedes ORS 12.117. Consequently, the plaintiff’s claim was timely under ORS 12.117, and the trial court erred in dismissing it on the grounds of immunity.
In essence, the Oregon Supreme Court did the right thing and found, with one judge dissenting, that child abuse claims against public bodies are not barred by the statute of ultimate repose and can be brought within the extended time limits provided in ORS 12.117, even when the claims arise under the OTCA.
Schmidt v. Mt. Angel Abbey, 347 Or. 389, 223 P.3d 399 (2009).
The court analyzed the meaning of “sexual exploitation” and “cruelty” as defined under Oregon law, ultimately reversing the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court found that the priest’s conduct, while not involving direct physical contact, could still be considered cruelty and sexual exploitation because it involved using the child in a sexual manner for personal gratification. This decision allowed the plaintiff to move forward with the claim despite the argument that the statute of limitations had expired.
We address above in the statute of limitations section why the court found the claim was not time barred.
Contact Us About Oregon Sex Abuse Lawsuits
If you were the victim of sexual abuse and want to file a sex abuse lawsuit in Oregon contact us today at 800-553-8082.