For many survivors of campus sexual assault, the university’s internal process ends with a sanction that bears little relationship to what actually happened. A student gets suspended for a semester. A faculty member is quietly reassigned. The survivor is left to keep attending the same campus, sometimes running into the same person, while the institution moves on.

If you have been through your school’s Title IX process and felt that way, or if you have been weighing whether to engage with it at all, it helps to understand that the internal process and a civil lawsuit are two completely different things. A civil case against a university, combining federal Title IX claims with state-law theories of negligence, can produce real financial accountability. The cases that followed the Larry Nassar scandal have made that clear in dollar terms that were once unimaginable.

What the Internal Title IX Process Actually Does

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and sexual assault, at any institution that receives federal funding. That covers virtually every college and university in the country.

The Title IX process most survivors encounter first is the school’s internal grievance procedure. Federally, that process was governed by the Department of Education’s 2020 regulations until August 1, 2024, when the Biden administration’s 2024 regulations briefly took effect. On January 9, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky vacated the 2024 regulations nationwide in Tennessee v. Cardona, finding they exceeded the Department’s authority and violated the Constitution. The 2020 regulations are back in force.

What the internal process can produce is meaningful, but limited. It may result in disciplinary action against an accused student or employee, supportive measures like no-contact orders or schedule changes, and policy recommendations. It cannot produce monetary compensation. It cannot compel independent discovery. It operates under different evidentiary rules than a civil court. And its outcome is entirely within the institution’s control, which is precisely the problem for survivors who are trying to hold that very same institution accountable.

The Title IX Civil Lawsuit for Damages

Separate from the regulations, and entirely separate from the internal process, the Supreme Court has long recognized that survivors can sue a federally funded school directly in federal court for money damages. That private cause of action was confirmed through a line of cases, such as Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979), Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992), Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998), and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999).

Under Davis, a Title IX civil damages claim requires a survivor to establish three things. First, that an appropriate university official with authority to take corrective action had actual knowledge of the harassment or assault. Second, that the university’s response, or its failure to respond, was clearly unreasonable given what it knew. Third, that the conduct was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, to the point that it deprived the survivor of access to educational opportunities or benefits.

This is sometimes called the deliberate indifference standard. It is intentionally narrow, but it is also the standard that has driven modern campus sexual assault litigation against universities for institutional failures spanning decades. Critically, the Supreme Court’s deliberate indifference standard was not affected by either the 2020 or 2024 regulations. It flows from the statute itself, and it remains the law regardless of which administration is in Washington.

State-Law Claims That Run Alongside Title IX

A campus sexual assault lawsuit rarely stands on Title IX alone. A well-built case typically pairs federal claims with one or more state-law theories.

Negligent hiring and retention addresses situations where a university hired or kept on a known risk, such as a physician, coach, or faculty member with prior complaints on record. Negligent supervision applies when the university failed to oversee an employee or third party who posed a foreseeable danger. Negligent failure to warn covers cases where the university knew about a risk and said nothing, in violation of its own published policies. Premises liability addresses physical failures on campus, such as broken locks, inadequate lighting, or unsecured access points, that contributed to an assault. Negligent investigation claims can arise from how the university responded after a survivor came forward, including retaliation, public disclosure of a survivor’s identity, or a failure to physically separate the perpetrator from the survivor on campus.

Sovereign immunity may limit certain claims against public universities depending on the state, and statutes of limitations vary considerably. A campus sexual assault attorney can work through which combination of claims fits a particular survivor’s situation.

How the Clery Act Fits In

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1990 requires every college and university receiving federal financial aid to publish an annual security report, disclose campus crime statistics, issue timely warnings about ongoing threats, and comply with the Campus Sexual Assault Victim’s Bill of Rights.

The Clery Act does not create a standalone private right of action. Survivors cannot file a civil lawsuit based on Clery violations alone. Enforcement is administrative, through the Department of Education, which can impose fines and suspend institutions from federal student aid programs. The largest Clery penalty in history was imposed against Liberty University in March 2024, a fine of $14 million. Michigan State University paid $4.5 million in 2019 for its handling of complaints against Larry Nassar.

That said, Clery violations are powerful evidence in civil litigation. A Department of Education finding that a school failed to report assaults, failed to issue timely warnings, or failed to comply with the Victim’s Bill of Rights helps establish that the university had notice of a problem and responded with deliberate indifference. That is the core Title IX civil standard. Documented Clery violations are also directly relevant to state-law negligence claims.

The Post-Nassar Wave of University Accountability

For decades, civil cases holding universities financially accountable for institutional failures were rare and modest. The Larry Nassar case at Michigan State changed the landscape permanently.

Michigan State University agreed to pay $500 million in 2018 to 332 survivors of former sports doctor Larry Nassar, with $425 million distributed to current claimants and $75 million set aside for future claims. In April 2024, the Department of Justice separately settled with more than 100 additional survivors for $138.7 million tied to the FBI’s mishandling of early complaints against Nassar.

USC resolved two separate rounds of litigation over former campus gynecologist George Tyndall. A $215 million federal class settlement was reached in 2019. In March 2021, USC agreed to an $852 million state court settlement with approximately 710 survivors, the largest sexual abuse settlement against any university in history at that time. The combined total exceeded $1.1 billion.

Ohio State University paid out a series of settlements totaling approximately $60 million to survivors who alleged sexual abuse by former team physician Richard Strauss, who worked at the university for two decades before his death in 2005.

The University of Michigan agreed in 2022 to a $490 million settlement with approximately 1,050 survivors of former sports doctor Robert Anderson. An internal investigation concluded the university had received complaints about Anderson as early as 1975 and failed to act.

Penn State paid more than $109 million to settle claims by at least 35 survivors of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.

These cases share a common thread. The institution knew, or should have known, and chose to protect its reputation rather than its students. They also established the modern litigation playbook: documenting institutional knowledge through internal investigations, whistleblower complaints, and prior Title IX and Clery filings.

The Two Tracks

A Title IX civil lawsuit and a parallel set of state-law claims do different work and run on different schedules. Title IX claims live in federal court and turn on the Davis deliberate indifference standard. State tort claims live in state court and turn on state-specific negligence rules. Many legal teams pursue both at once, often alongside an intentional-tort claim directly against the individual perpetrator.

A survivor does not have to choose one track over the other. The right combination depends on the specific facts, and in many cases the strongest approach involves both.

We Are Here to Hear Your Story

A university’s internal Title IX process is not the only path to accountability, and for many survivors it does not produce the kind of accountability that matters most. Constant Legal Group represents college and university sexual abuse survivors in civil litigation against the institutions that may have failed them.
We offer free, confidential consultations with no obligation and no upfront cost. We only get paid if we recover compensation for you. There is no pressure to act before you are ready.
Call us at 855-906-2561

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contact Constant Legal Group for a confidential evaluation specific to your circumstances. Case outcomes vary significantly based on the specific facts of each case, jurisdiction, and applicable law.