After Larry Nassar's sentencing, what legal steps remain for his accuser

U.S. District Court Judge Janet T. Neff sentenced former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar to 60 years in prison, the maximum amount allowed, on Thursday for three counts involving child pornography and destruction of evidence. As I wrote in July, the charges Nassar pleaded guilty to were just a fraction of the criminal and civil cases pending against him for sexual misconduct against girls and young women under his care.

Because of that, closure isn't complete, and the results of the lawsuit against Nassar, gymnastics' governing bodies and Michigan State University could have long-lasting impact on the sport.

The state charges against Nassar

Nassar's federal sentence won't shield him from being sentenced for the state offenses. Last month, he pleaded guilty to 10 counts of criminal sexual conduct in Michigan. The cases involved the police reports of more than 125 women, and Nassar's guilty plea and specific admission that the acts he committed were not part of a legitimate medical procedure mean that his sentences in those cases are likely to be harsh. But no matter the size of the state sentence, because of the length and supremacy of Nassar's federal sentence, it's highly unlikely that he'll live to serve any of the state sentence. He will be on record as a Michigan state sex offender, though.

The lawsuits

Nassar is also named in lawsuits filed by more than 140 girls and women who have accused him of sexual abuse. The parties in the lawsuits, which also name Michigan State, USA Gymnastics and the United States Olympic Committee as responsible parties, have failed to reach settlement through the mediation process, meaning Nassar will be headed back to court to respond to the civil allegations. His guilty pleas in the criminal case make establishing Nassar's civil responsibility all but a foregone conclusion, as the burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal ones. If Nassar's responsibility is indeed established, a judge or jury will likely decide that he must pay significant monetary damages to his accusers. Whether Nassar has any funds with which to pay is unknown.

What's less clear about the lawsuit is whether Michigan State, USA Gymnastics and the USOC will also be held responsible -- and, if so, to what degree -- for allowing Nassar's behavior. Details released from the lawsuits state that the organizations allegedly knew about Nassar's behavior and failed to respond in an appropriate way to prevent Nassar from harming girls and women in the future. If it's proved by a preponderance of the evidence -- that is, "more likely than not" -- that officials did in fact know or should have known of Nassar's behavior and ignored it, the organizations might also owe the victims substantial sums of money. A significant award of damages for 140 victims could put some strain on any of the organizations.

Although the plaintiffs (the girls and women) and the defendants (the organizations) are likely anxious for a resolution, since a trial has yet to be set in this matter, we have no way of determining when a decision would be reached in the civil matter. It's likely, however, that a trial of this magnitude could take years.

What the case could mean for nonprofits

The magnitude and publicity of the civil case mean a decision could also set legal precedent for nonprofit organizations, since the USOC, USA Gymnastics and Michigan State are all nonprofits. Currently, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX, for instance, educational organizations have duties to prevent, investigate and respond to sexual discrimination within their workplaces. Because the USOC and USA Gymnastics aren't educational institutions, and therefore are not bound by Title IX, they will be fighting to distance themselves from Nassar. Under the law of agency if the USOC and USA Gymnastics establish that he wasn't their employee and was not under their control, they could absolve themselves. If the plaintiffs can establish that the USOC and USA Gymnastics did have control over Nassar, had knowledge of Nassar's behavior and had a duty to protect the plaintiffs, this case could place an affirmative duty on nonprofits to protect those they serve from sexual misconduct even if the abusers are not official employees of the nonprofit.

Michigan State, as an educational institution with affirmative duties under Title IX that did employ Nassar, would have to defend itself from a different position. If the school can't establish that it did not have knowledge of Nassar's behavior, it should be held liable for failing to put an end to Nassar's abuse. The Title IX cases we hear about usually involve faculty and student behavior, but this case could establish that Title IX places a requirement on schools to protect nonstudents and nonfaculty from the sexual misconduct of those associated with the school. Although many would argue that Title IX already does that, this case could expressly and publicly solidify the reach of Title IX.

(ESPN)