COLUMBUS, Ohio — A woman who was sexually abused as a child by a then-Ohio University Police Department officer re-filed a lawsuit against the university this month, seeking to hold OU liable for the abuse she suffered. Her refiled claim argues that a lack of records related to a 25-year-old investigation demonstrate OU’s liability.
“I’ve been fighting through this struggle since I was a kid, a little girl,” Alison Arocho, the plaintiff in the case, told the Independent in a text message. “I have no doubt we will ultimately be successful. How long that will take will entirely depend on the amount of resistance Ohio University has to justice.”
Her attorney Mike Fradin told the Independent, “We want justice for Ali. … It’s a matter of fairness and equity, and of Ohio University just acknowledging that there were errors made so something like this doesn’t happen again.”
OU declined to comment for this story, citing pending litigation.
Arocho has maintained that OU’s employment of then-officer Robert A. Parsons enabled his abuse of Arocho. Parsons repeatedly sexually abused Arocho when she was 15.
Arocho testified at a 2022 trial that Parsons’ employment as an officer made her feel she could not seek recourse against him and that he used his status to threaten her and her family into complying with his demands.
Parsons was sentenced to six months in the Southeast Ohio Regional Jail in 2006 on criminal charges related to his abuse of Arocho. He was also held civilly liable for the abuse via a 2023 trial in the Athens County Court of Common Pleas, where he was sentenced to pay Arocho a total of over $768,000.
Arocho has been pursuing her case against OU since she initially filed it in the Ohio Court of Claims in 2019. The court heard the case in a 2022 trial, and ruled in OU’s favor. But then an appeals court found the trial court had erred in quashing Arocho’s request for records related to a 2001 incident involving Parsons.
The court then reviewed the records in question. Based on what the appeals court found — or rather, didn’t find — Arocho has now refiled the case.
“I’m happy we are taking the next step; while disappointed with how many extra steps Ohio University forces me to take,” Arocho said in a text message.
A lack of records from Athens County Children Services
Years before OU was alerted to Parsons’ conduct with Arocho in December 2005, the university investigated an allegation against Parsons in 2001.
OU’s records related to the investigation are few. OU representatives said at the 2022 trial that the university did not retain records per university policy, though Arocho argues in her refiled complaint that the lack of records demonstrates OU conducted “only a superficial internal inquiry into the 2001 allegations.”
An inter-office OU memo from 2001 says the investigation was inconclusive. A 2006 record from OU’s disciplinary proceedings against Parsons described the 2001 incident as pertaining to a “similar allegation” to the allegations concerning Parsons’ sexual abuse of Arocho. The memo states the 2001 complaint alleged Parsons “tried to initiate sexual relations with a juvenile female.”
Arocho’s attorneys argue in her refiling of the case, “Defendant Ohio University knew or should have known of Parsons’ dangerous propensities based upon the 2001 allegations.”
“Defendant negligently retained Parsons in a position of public trust and authority and failed to exercise reasonable care in his supervision,” the new complaint continues.
At the 2022 trial, Parsons said the 2001 investigation pertained to an incident during which he gave his daughter’s friend a ride home. He said at the trial that he reached over his minor passenger to open her car door because it did not open easily. He said the child viewed this action as a “pass,” or sexual advance.
Parsons’s account offers the only details about the 2001 incident in the court record. He previously lied to investigators regarding his history with Arocho, he acknowledged in a conversation with the Independent after the 2022 trial.
In the run-up to the 2022 trial, Arocho’s attorneys attempted to gather other evidence about the 2001 incident through records from Athens County Children Services. The 2006 document states a complaint about the 2001 incident had been filed with Athens County Children Services.
The judge who presided over the case at the time quashed Arocho’s subpoena for Athens County Children Services records, following a request by Athens County Children Services and the office of Athens County Prosecutor Keller Blackburn. A new judge took over the case by the time the trial rolled around, however — and at trial, he said he would not have quashed the subpoena.
Arocho argued in her appeal of the case that her inability to access Athens County Children Services records about the 2001 incident contributed to the trial outcome.
After the appellate court ruled in OU’s favor, the lower court received and reviewed Athens County Children Services records. However, none of the records pertained to the 2001 incident.
As a public children services agency, Athens County Children Services is required under an Ohio law dating back to the 1980s to “permanently keep case records.” Meanwhile, police officers are required by state law to report suspected child abuse to public children services agencies.
Arocho argues in her refiled lawsuit that Athens County Children Services’ lack of records on the 2001 incident demonstrates that OU never reported the 2001 incident to the agency — in violation of statutory requirements — regardless of what the OU record from 2006 says about the matter. That casts further doubt on OU’s handling of the 2001 complaint, Fradin said.
“We know that OUPD had this information; we know that ACCS never had this information, and that’s significant,” Fradin told the Independent.
He added that he hopes OU will take “a fresh approach in litigation,” given that new OU President Lori Gonzales will now oversee the university’s response.
OU had not yet filed its response to the new complaint filed in the Ohio Court of Claims July 10. The university has 28 days to respond from the time of the filing.
