Menu
For decades, survivors of sexual assault have experienced a second trauma after their assault. It’s this additional harrowing experience that drives many survivors into hiding as they hesitate to bring their complaint forward. When those brave enough to bring their experience to light come forward, their complaints are minimized, and the perpetrator's reputation is protected. This is in stark contrast to the victim’s treatment. Many find themselves being viewed as the problem and not someone deserving of protection.
California aims to correct this injustice by passing sexual assault cover-up laws. This legislation gives survivors a second chance at holding an institution accountable for its active concealment and discouragement of student reporting.
The team at ADZ Law, LLP recently assisted two former students of Saint Mary’s College of California. The landmark lawsuit centered on their claims of being sexually assaulted during the first few months of their freshman year, now widely recognized as “The Red Zone”. The time period between the start of the school year and Thanksgiving has seen an increase in sexual assaults on U.S. College campuses, with incoming students being the most vulnerable.
After reporting the sexual assaults they suffered, the plaintiffs were then subjected to retaliation, intimidation, and institutional silencing by Saint Mary’s College administrators and staff. . ADZ Law, LLP filed a claim on behalf of the students under California’s revival statute. It included a claim for sexual assault cover-up. This one case reflects a much larger problem that warrants legal scrutiny: private institutions protecting themselves at the expense of survivors.
A survivor known as Jane Doe 1 brought forward allegations that Saint Mary’s College of California pressured her not to report her sexual assault to outside law enforcement authorities. Her claim included allegations that the institution put the blame on her, writing her up for “drinking and having sex,” a finding that would qualify for the loss of her scholarship. Individuals representing the institution pushed her to stop cooperating with law enforcement. The administration required her to attend meetings that she understood were efforts to discourage her from continuing the pursuit of her complaint. The College’s Disciplinary Hearing Board found her assailant responsible for sexual assault. However, the school’s housing department took additional retaliatory action. They moved Jane Doe 1 into the same dormitory as her rapist.
The lawsuit also aligns the plaintiffs’ allegations with Saint Mary’s College's history of problematic handling of sexual assault reporting. According to the complaint, there have been longstanding questions about whether campus crime data was fully reported and whether the College’s practices aligned with federal Clery Act obligations. The allegations further describe a pattern in which survivors were discouraged from reporting assaults or pursuing outside investigation, with some matters reportedly resolved through confidential settlement agreements.
Over time, these concerns surfaced publicly through student-led actions, including a 2001 hunger strike, a 2002 protest that limited media access, and a 2022 campus walkout involving hundreds of students. Viewed together, the complaint frames the case as part of a broader institutional history that students and survivors have challenged across multiple decades.
The second plaintiff chose to come forward publicly, using her own name, Kate Malone, instead of being known as Jane Doe 2. Her assailant was arrested following a violent rape. Law enforcement issued a restraining order. The school’s Disciplinary Hearing Board initially expelled her assailant. However, this was the first time in the College’s history that a student had been expelled for sexual assault. Beyond this response, she was actively discouraged by the school’s administration from reporting the rape to outside authorities. The initial expulsion response was rescinded by Brother Jack Curran, who then arranged for the perpetrator to graduate on schedule.
Flyers were posted across the campus that publicly identified Kate Malone as a “liar” and “crazy”. Her car was vandalized. The school newspaper included reports about the assault for months. Due to the aggressive and multifaceted response by the school and its employees, Kate ultimately dropped out of college and hasn’t been able to complete her undergraduate education.
Over time, these concerns surfaced publicly through student-led actions, including a 2001 hunger strike, a 2002 protest that limited media access, and a 2022 campus walkout involving hundreds of students. Viewed together, the complaint frames the case as part of a broader institutional history that students and survivors have challenged across multiple decades.
That "revival window” for certain claims that involve allegations of institutional concealment or a cover-up of sexual assault is outlined in California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16(e). It allows survivors to file civil lawsuits that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. Under this law, a claim can be filed if the plaintiff alleges that a sexual assault occurred and a legally responsible entity attempted to or actually performed a “cover-up” of the incident.
The term “cover up” is fairly broad. It could be any conduct that includes interfering with an investigation, discouraging reporting, or using legal tools to suppress complaint filing. The institution’s leadership or administration takes steps to prioritize the institution’s reputation over addressing the misconduct. Importantly, the statute does not require the cover-up to have been successful.
Lawmakers added the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act to CCP § 340.16(e). It created a one-year lookback window that temporarily revived certain time-barred civil claims for adult survivors of sexual assault. This limited time frame opens the door for survivors to seek legal justice.
Cases like this one are crucial for addressing a systemic problematic response by institutions. Victims need to feel secure in reporting their sexual assault without the fear of being subjected to further long-term harm. In order for California lawmakers to see the impact of the problem, cases like these need to be brought to the forefront.
It’s brave survivors like Jane Doe 1 and Kate Malone who start and continue the conversation. Shining a light on this difficult topic brings much-needed and long-avoided accountability. This new approach can also be applied to a broad range of institutions, including schools, employers, and religious organizations.
This case against Saint Mary’s College is an example of why California expanded its sexual assault revival laws. Many survivors spend years believing they have no legal options left, particularly in cases involving institutions that allegedly discouraged complaints or concealed misconduct.
ADZ Law, LLP advocates for survivors pursuing claims against private schools, employers, religious organizations, and other institutions accused of enabling abuse or suppressing complaints. The firm’s work in this case reflects its broader commitment to helping survivors pursue justice with dignity, privacy, and experienced legal guidance.
Contact ADZ Law to learn more about your legal rights and whether California’s current revival laws may apply to your situation.
Our Firm Speaks
© 2026 ADZ Law, LLP
| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm
