In a significant ruling, the Ohio Court of Claims has granted summary judgment to The Ohio State University (OSU) in a case involving sexual misconduct allegations against a former diving coach. The court's decision, made on June 17, 2026, affects the plaintiff, Eszter Pryor, who alleged that she was sexually abused by William Bohonyi, a former assistant coach at the university's diving club. This case highlights the complexities of liability for institutions in cases of sexual misconduct.
The court's ruling is crucial as it sets a precedent for how universities may be held accountable for the actions of their employees, particularly in cases involving sexual misconduct. The decision could have implications for other institutions facing similar claims.
Background
The case, Pryor v. Ohio State University (Case No. 2022-00044JD), stems from allegations made by Eszter Pryor against William Bohonyi, who was an assistant coach with the Ohio State University Diving Club. Pryor, a minor at the time of the incidents, claims that Bohonyi engaged in sexual misconduct with her beginning in 2014 when she was 16 years old. The misconduct reportedly included unwanted physical contact and forced sexual acts.
Pryor's allegations suggest that Bohonyi had a history of inappropriate behavior, which she claims was known to some within the university before the incidents occurred. She contended that OSU failed to take adequate measures to prevent the misconduct despite being aware of Bohonyi's past behavior. The university, however, denied any liability, asserting that it acted appropriately once it became aware of the allegations.
The case was initially filed on January 25, 2022, after Bohonyi's employment was terminated following an internal investigation. The court had stayed the case due to a related federal case, but it resumed after the federal proceedings concluded. The university sought summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable for Bohonyi's actions.
The Ruling
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Claims, presided over by Judge David E. Cain, granted summary judgment in favor of OSU on all claims brought by Pryor. The court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact that warranted a trial. The judge stated, "reasonable minds can come to one conclusion that is adverse to plaintiff," indicating that the evidence did not support Pryor's claims against the university.
The court ruled that OSU could not be held vicariously liable for Bohonyi's actions, as his misconduct was deemed a clear departure from the scope of his employment. The judge noted that Bohonyi's actions were not intended to further the university's interests or business. The ruling emphasized that for an employer to be held liable for an employee's actions, those actions must be closely related to the employee's job duties.
Furthermore, the court addressed Pryor's claims of negligence, including negligent supervision and retention, stating that OSU had no actual or constructive knowledge of Bohonyi's misconduct prior to August 2014. The university's response to the allegations was found to be swift and appropriate, as it suspended Bohonyi immediately upon learning of the claims.
Impact
The court's decision has significant implications for how universities handle allegations of sexual misconduct. It underscores the importance of establishing a clear connection between an employee's actions and their job responsibilities when determining liability. The ruling may influence future cases where institutions are accused of failing to protect individuals from misconduct by their employees.
This ruling may also affect how victims of sexual abuse approach their claims against educational institutions. The court's findings suggest that institutions may have a strong defense against liability if they can demonstrate that they acted appropriately upon learning of misconduct. However, the ruling does not diminish the seriousness of the allegations and the need for institutions to maintain vigilant oversight of their employees.
What's Next
As of now, there is no indication that Pryor plans to appeal the ruling. However, the case's outcome may prompt discussions about policy changes within universities regarding the handling of sexual misconduct allegations. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.