All charges against Senior Associate Athletic Director Ralph Reiff have been dismissed. Photo by Jada Gangazha. 

EMMA MCLEAN | MANAGING EDITOR | emclean@butler.edu 

AIDAN GREGG | MANAGING EDITOR | agregg1@butler.edu 

In the ongoing sex abuse case filed by four current and former women’s soccer players, a court ruling on March 31 has dismissed charges of negligence against Butler University and all charges against Ralph Reiff, the senior associate athletic director for student-athlete health, performance and well-being. 

Southern District Court Judge James R. Sweeney II ruled that neither Butler University nor Reiff had a legal duty to protect the plaintiffs from the alleged abuse, leading to the dismissal of negligence claims against them. 

Additionally, any claims falling outside the statute of limitations, which is two years in Indiana, were also dismissed. Incidents which Jane Does 1 and 2 claim occurred before July 26, 2021, are beyond the statute of limitations and will not be considered. Incidents which Jane Doe 4 claims occurred before Aug. 17, 2021, will similarly not be considered, because she joined the case subsequent to Jane Doe 1-3’s filing. The relevant incidents include several occurrences of alleged inappropriate touching. 

The court has allowed the vicarious liability claims against Butler to proceed, which assert that the university could be held responsible for the alleged misconduct committed by former assistant athletic trainer Michael Howell while he was employed by the university. 

Unless the plaintiffs settle, a jury will decide whether Howell’s actions occurred within the scope of his employment, which could result in Butler being held liable for his conduct. However, jury trial will not commence until Howell’s bankruptcy proceedings, which he filed on Jan. 14 of this year, are resolved.

Dismissal of negligence claims against Butler and Reiff

The negligence claims against Butler and Reiff required that they owed a duty of care to the women’s soccer players. The State of Indiana employs a three-part test to determine whether a duty of care exists. The first part concerns the relationship between the relevant parties; the second concerns the foreseeability of harm; and the third concerns public policy concerns. 

In his ruling, Sweeney said that the lack of case law to support the plaintiffs’ argument for the special relationship between the women’s soccer players and the university, rendered it “rather off target.” He found that “Plaintiffs were student athletes at Butler University; their relationship with Defendants ends there.”

To determine the foreseeability of harm, Indiana courts must determine “whether there is some probability or likelihood of harm that is serious enough to induce a reasonable person to take precautions to avoid it.” Sweeney determined that nothing suggests that universities should assume that their athletic trainers may sexually assault students. 

The plaintiffs argued that because it is illegal for athletic trainers to sexually abuse trainees, there is a public policy concern; Sweeney disagreed. He argued that universities do not necessarily have a duty to institute policies prohibiting actions that “may be grounds for disciplinary sanctions by the Indiana Athletic Trainers Board.” Failing to meet these three criteria, the court found that there was not necessarily a duty of care and therefore dismissed the negligence charges. 

Despite ruling to dismiss a number of the women’s soccer players’ claims, Sweeney said that the university has launched “several disjointed arguments” against the legal theory used by the plaintiffs. 

Regarding the women’s soccer players’ claims of negligence and failure to meet a standard of care, Sweeney said that the defendants “spend a large chunk of their brief attempting to pigeon-hole Does’ claims into oblivion using nonsensical jargon.” 

Additionally, the judge reiterated that the university’s claim that the women’s soccer players should have pursued remedy through the Medical Malpractice Act, citing his earlier ruling that “sex abuse is not medical care.”

“Defendants are free to ‘respectfully disagree’ with the Court’s rulings, but regurgitating failed arguments will get them nowhere in convincing the Court to grant their motion,” Sweeney said in his ruling.

Nevertheless, the claims were dismissed because they failed to pass Indiana’s three-part test, and Butler and Reiff were found not to owe a duty of care. 

Vicarious liability claims against Butler  

Vicarious liability holds employers accountable for the harmful actions of their employees during the course of their employment, even if the employer did not directly witness or cause the harmful behavior. 

In this case, the plaintiffs argue that the university should be held accountable for Howell’s misconduct as it occurred “within the scope of his employment.” This is the main argument of the vicarious liability claims; “under the doctrine of respondeat superior,” Butler would be responsible for Howell’s conduct, including the alleged sexual assaults.

Sweeney maintained that “at least some of [Howell’s] conduct leading up to and at the time of the alleged assaults was sanctioned by Butler University.” Given that at least part of his alleged actions were within the scope of his employment, it is plausible for a jury to determine that the alleged sexual assault arose naturally or predictably from his employment activities.  

Statute of limitations

Regarding the statute of limitations, Indiana’s discovery rule determines when the time limit for filing a legal claim begins. Under this rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knew or could have reasonably discovered that they had been injured as a result of another’s actions.

The key issue is the timeline of when the plaintiffs realized they were being abused by Howell. Sweeney determined that the statute of limitations began when each act occurred, making claims older than two years time irrelevant to the case. Plaintiffs have argued that they did not realize the abuse until later, as Howell incorporated it into their athletic treatment. 

This ruling is yet another update in the ongoing series of developments surrounding Butler’s sex abuse lawsuit. Despite the dismissal of several claims, the lawsuit’s broader implications remain, particularly regarding how Butler could be held responsible for the alleged sexual exploitation by Howell. This case will proceed to trial unless the plaintiffs agree to a settlement. As the legal proceedings continue, more developments are expected. 

The Collegian will continue to investigate and report on this story.