Whether plaintiffs’ Title IX claim was time-barred; Claim accrual; Application of the discovery rule to Title IX claims; Snyder-Hill v Ohio State Univ; Title IX retaliation claim; Jackson v Birmingham Bd of Educ; Judicial impartiality; Recusal under 28 USC § 455(a); Hughes v United States; Financial interest under § 455(d)(4); Whether recusal is required because a judge serves as an adjunct professor at the law school of a party-university; Sessoms v Trustees of Univ of PA (Unpub 3d Cir); Considering the cumulative effect of a judge’s individual actions; Easley v University of MI Bd of Regents

Holding that Snyder-Hill applied equally to plaintiffs-abuse survivors’ claims, the court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the claims as untimely, and remanded. But because it found the district court properly denied plaintiffs’ Title IX retaliation claim and did not abuse its discretion by denying their motions seeking the judge’s recusal, the court affirmed as to those claims. It joined other “circuits in concluding that recusal is not required just because a judge serves as an adjunct professor at the law school of a party-university.” In 2018, former Ohio State student-athletes came forward alleging that an Ohio State employee (Dr. Richard Strauss) had abused them and that Ohio State had covered it up. Hundreds of survivors, including plaintiffs, sued Ohio State under Title IX. The district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. Prior to this appeal, another panel reversed the district court’s order as it pertained to two other groups of plaintiffs in Snyder-Hill. The court found that Snyder-Hill applied equally here. “That panel held that the discovery rule applies to Title IX claims, meaning that a plaintiff’s claim accrues when he ‘knows or has reason to know’ not only that he was injured but also that ‘the defendant caused’ his injury. For a Title IX case like this one, a plaintiff’s claim does not accrue until he ‘knows or has reason to know that the defendant institution,’ here Ohio State, injured him. So ‘the clock starts only once the plaintiff knows or should have known that Ohio State administrators “with authority to take corrective action” knew of Strauss’s conduct and failed to respond appropriately.’” Applying Snyder-Hill, the court noted that “[j]ust when the plaintiffs knew or should have known that Strauss’s conduct was abuse, and when they knew or should have known about Ohio State’s role in causing their injuries are questions of fact that we cannot resolve on a motion to dismiss.” But as to the Title IX retaliation claim, the court found plaintiffs failed to “adequately allege a claim against Ohio State as an institution.” Finally, as to the motions to recuse the district judge and transfer the case to a judge in a different division, the court could not say that the judge “abused his discretion in determining that § 455 did not require his recusal.” In addition to recusal not being required due to a judge serving as an adjunct professor at a party-university’s law school, it was not required here based on a financial interest or the cumulative effect of the judge’s individual actions.