Education – Title IX – Limitations

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has alleged that he was sexually harassed and assaulted by a teacher employed by the defendant city of Woburn in 1996 while the plaintiff was a student at Kennedy Middle School, the plaintiff’s Title IX claim has been time-barred since approximately 2004, so it must be dismissed.

“… The general limitations period for personal injury claims in Massachusetts, set by M.G.L.c. 260, §2A, is three years.

“The next question is when Doe’s Title IX claim accrued. …

“Under the discovery rule, a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff is, or should be, ‘aware of both the fact of his or her injury and the injury’s likely causal connection with the putative defendant.’ … The rule’s application to Doe’s claim turns on what constitutes an injury under Title IX. …

“Doe is not like the plaintiffs who were unaware of abuse they had experienced. He does not deny, and it is clear from the face of the complaint, that he was aware that McNeil’s actions were inappropriate at the time they occurred. He acknowledges that he ‘attempted to remain out of view’ of McNeil and that he had experienced a ‘panicked feeling’ and ‘symptoms’ of anxiety ‘while standing on the scale’ during the incident. … Rather than repressing or misunderstanding what occurred, he ‘attempted to avoid remembering the sexual assault,’ and he also heard at the time about similar assaults from other students. … These facts all make clear that Doe understood the facts giving rise to his Title IX claim at the time of the abuse. Doe’s contention that he did not understand that the abuse had caused him psychological harm does not delay accrual of his claim, as Title IX claims do not require psychological harm in order to accrue. Since his cause of action accrued while he was a student, and the statute of limitations was then tolled until his eighteenth birthday, Doe’s Title IX claim has been time-barred since approximately 2004. The Court will therefore grant the City’s motion to dismiss as to Count V. …

“Doe’s remaining claims are all founded on state law. …

“… Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Doe’s remaining state law claims.”

Doe No. 3 v. City of Woburn (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-248-25) (11 pages) (Kobick, J.) (Docket No. 1:24-cv-12153-JEK) (April 29, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.