Institutions like schools, churches, and hospitals are meant to serve and support their communities. But when sexual abuse occurs within these systems, leaders often protect the institution at the expense of the victim.
Rather than prioritizing transparency and accountability, many organizations respond by minimizing allegations or protecting those in power. This culture of denial enables abuse to continue and silences those who try to speak out.
"In order to protect their reputations, institutions will often go to great lengths to ensure 'damage control' when allegations of abuse surface rather than admit to wrongdoing."
– Dr. Jennifer Freyd
At Sokolove Law, we believe that no institution should be allowed to hide abuse or silence survivors. If you or a loved one has been harmed, take the first step toward justice now.
What Is Institutional Abuse?
Institutional abuse occurs when people are harmed or exploited in places that are supposed to protect them, like schools, nursing homes, or hospitals, often by those in positions of trust or authority.
This type of abuse is especially damaging because victims rely on institutions for care and safety. When organizations ignore warning signs or cover up misconduct, they allow the harm to continue and become complicit in the cycle of abuse.
How Abuse in Institutions Is Covered Up
For decades, many powerful organizations have enabled abusers and protected them from consequences. From the Catholic Church’s concealment of clergy abuse to scandals involving doctors, coaches, and teachers, the pattern is disturbingly similar.
Rather than addressing abuse directly, many institutions focus on containing damage — protecting their reputations, finances, and leaders instead of safeguarding those who were harmed.
Learn more about how abuse in institutions is often covered up or minimized by those in power.
Delaying or Obstructing Investigations
Delaying or obstructing investigations refers to the deliberate or systemic actions by an institution or its leaders to hinder, stall, or prevent proper inquiry into allegations of abuse or neglect.
When facing abuse allegations, institutions may:
- Conduct internal reviews instead of independent ones
- Fail to preserve or share evidence
- Postpone fact-finding and accountability
- Refuse to cooperate with investigators
In an audit of 6,182 investigations of California's foster care system, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that 4,402 cases or 71% were not completed within the state's 90-day goal.
Failing to Report Abuse to Law Enforcement
Failing to report abuse to law enforcement occurs when an institution doesn't disclose allegations or evidence to the police or other authorities, even when mandatory reporting laws require it.
At Miss Hall’s School, a prestigious boarding school in Massachusetts, multiple former students have alleged sexual abuse by popular teacher Matthew Rutledge, who taught there for more than 30 years.
An investigation later revealed that Miss Hall's knew as early as the 1990s about Rutledge's misconduct. However, the school didn't report the allegations to law enforcement or remove him from his position, allowing him to teach until he resigned in 2024.
Ignoring or Dismissing Complaints
Institutions may minimize, overlook, or reject reports of abuse, whether those concerns come from victims, parents, or other witnesses. They may downplay behaviors as misunderstandings or question the credibility of the victim.
When complaints are ignored, abusers are often emboldened. Those who speak up may be labeled as troublemakers, making others less likely to report. This creates a culture of silence where abuse can continue undetected for years.
In juvenile detention facilities, reports of physical and sexual abuse have often been ignored or buried by administrators seeking to avoid public scandal. Survivors have described being silenced, threatened, or even punished for speaking out.
Minimizing or Concealing Evidence
Institutions have been known to conceal, alter, or destroy proof of abuse to avoid scrutiny, liability, or damage to their reputation.
Evidence that should trigger criminal or regulatory investigations is instead suppressed, and the matter is handled internally or quietly resolved without external oversight.
One example involves the rideshare company Uber. While Uber publicly disclosed 12,522 reports of serious sexual assaults from 2017 to 2022, internal documents revealed over 400,000 reports of sexual misconduct during that same period.
Relocating or Reassigning Perpetrators
Organizations may relocate or reassign perpetrators accused of abuse rather than removing them from positions of trust. This allows the accused to avoid accountability and often enables further harm in the new setting.
A widely documented example is the Catholic Church, where priests accused of sexual abuse were often shuffled to new parishes instead of being removed from ministry, giving them continued access to vulnerable children.
Cruise lines have faced similar accusations. Survivors of sexual assault at sea have reported that some companies reassigned accused crew members to other ships, allowing them to continue interacting with passengers.
Silencing Victims
Silencing victims refers to institutional practices that prevent those who raise abuse allegations from being heard, believed, or supported. This suppresses disclosure, discourages reporting, and allows abuse to continue.
Institutions may try to:
- Tell survivors their concerns are overreactions or even false, causing self-doubt and withdrawal of complaints
- Require victims to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) as a condition of a settlement, barring them from speaking publicly
- Threaten victims with retaliation, like job loss, expulsion, or removal from support networks
Production studios and entertainment companies have been accused of enabling abuse by protecting high-profile figures. Survivors have described being pressured into signing NDAs, discouraged from going to the police, and retaliated against.
In 2022, 1 in 3 workers were forced to sign NDAs that prohibit reports of sexual misconduct to protect companies’ reputations, according to Stanford.
Examples of Institutional Abuse Cover-Ups
Institutions across nearly every sector have faced allegations of concealing sexual abuse. These scandals show how power, reputation, and secrecy can silence victims for decades.
Find out about the tactics institutions have used to cover up sexual abuse:
- Boy Scouts of America: The BSA kept confidential “ineligible volunteer” files, sometimes called the “perversion files,” to track known or suspected abusers without alerting law enforcement or the public. This allowed some predators to continue working with children for decades.
- Catholic Church: The Catholic Church concealed decades of clergy abuse by moving priests to new parishes instead of reporting them to police. In some dioceses, internal records documented allegations that were never disclosed to the authorities.
- Jehovah's Witnesses: Church elders were instructed to report abuse allegations to their parent organization instead of the police. Closed-door disciplinary hearings and the “two-witness rule” also made it nearly impossible for survivors to seek justice.
- Mormon Church: The Church used a "help line” to forward abuse allegations to their law firm instead of the authorities.
- Universities: Colleges like Penn State and Michigan State University have paid hundreds of millions in settlements after administrators failed to act on credible reports of abuse by former employees like Jerry Sandusky and Dr. Larry Nassar.
These examples make it clear that institutional cover-ups are not isolated incidents — they’re part of a long-standing pattern across many different organizations.
Despite extensive cover-ups, many survivors are now coming forward to expose wrongdoing and demand justice from those who failed to protect them.
The Case of Dr. Derrick Todd
Health care systems aren't immune to the same systemic failures that have allowed abuse to persist in other institutions. When reports are minimized, policies ignored, and accountability delayed, patients are placed in danger.
The case of former Massachusetts rheumatologist Dr. Derrick Todd shows how institutional failures can enable years of abuse.
Nearly 250 women accused him of grooming, performing unnecessary breast and pelvic exams, and assaulting them at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Faulkner Hospital, and Charles River Medical Associates.
Reporting by the Boston Globe found that:
- Despite as many as 10 complaints over a decade, including reports made to doctors who were legally required to notify the medical board, no serious action was taken to restrict Todd’s license
- The Brigham received new complaints in April 2023 but allowed Todd to keep treating patients for 2 months, during which at least 22 additional women were allegedly assaulted
- Hospital leaders instructed Todd to use chaperones and stop pelvic exams, but those orders went unenforced
- At least 9 women were allegedly assaulted at Charles River Medical Associates after Todd was placed on leave from Brigham and Women’s Hospital
- The Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine failed to issue an emergency suspension, waiting until September 2023 to sideline him with a voluntary, non-disciplinary agreement
As of 2025, Todd is now facing 2 criminal rape charges and hundreds of civil lawsuits. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
These failures reflect systemic breakdowns at multiple levels, from hospital leadership to state medical boards. Countless warnings were ignored, oversight was delayed, and patient safety was repeatedly compromised.
“The price of delayed action is painfully evident: At least nine women told the Globe they were assaulted by Todd at Charles River after he was put on leave at the Brigham.”
– The Boston Globe
Why Do Institutions Protect Abusers?
When sexual abuse occurs within trusted organizations, the instinct of leadership is often self-preservation, not protection.
Whether it’s a church, hospital, school, or youth organization, institutions tend to close ranks — shielding their reputation, finances, and authority.
Reasons why institutions may protect abusers instead of survivors include:
- Financial Risk: Acknowledging abuse can lead to costly lawsuits, settlements, or lost funding. Some organizations may delay investigations or pressure survivors into silence to limit financial liability.
- Internal Loyalty: Colleagues may protect one another to preserve personal or professional relationships. Within tight-knit communities, exposing an abuser can be seen as a betrayal, discouraging witnesses and staff from speaking out.
- Lack of Accountability: When oversight systems fail or reporting mechanisms are weak, abusers are shielded by a culture where misconduct is normalized and rarely punished.
- Reputation and Public Image: Leadership often fears backlash, media scrutiny, or damage to the institution’s authority. To maintain an appearance of trustworthiness and stability, they may deny or conceal abuse, even at the expense of survivors.
These motives reveal how self-interest and systemic silence perpetuate abuse. Until accountability outweighs image, survivors will continue to pay the price for institutional inaction.
How Survivors of Sexual Abuse Can Seek Justice
When institutions fail to protect individuals from abuse, legal action may be the only way to hold both the perpetrator and the organization accountable. Through the civil justice system, survivors have the power to make their voices heard.
By filing a civil lawsuit, survivors can seek sexual abuse compensation for medical expenses, therapy, lost income, and emotional suffering. Lawsuits also play a critical role in exposing patterns of negligence, prompting policy reforms, and helping prevent future abuse.
Institutions may be held legally responsible if they:
- Covered up reports to protect their reputation
- Enabled or ignored abuse
- Failed to investigate complaints
- Hired known offenders or performed inadequate background checks
When organizations have the power to prevent abuse but choose not to act, they may share responsibility for the harm that occurred.
Survivors should also be aware that statutes of limitations, which are laws that limit how long you have to file a claim, vary by state. Many states have extended or temporarily lifted these deadlines, giving survivors more time to come forward.
Our Institutional Abuse Lawyers Stand with Survivors
At Sokolove Law, our sexual abuse lawyers have fought to uncover institutional wrongdoing and support survivors. Our firm has the experience and resources necessary to level the playing field and help you hold negligent institutions accountable.
We can help families in all 50 states take legal action — and there are no upfront costs or hourly fees to work with our team.
To date, our firm has secured over $10.1 Billion total for those harmed through no fault of their own.
Call (800) 995-1212 right now or fill out our contact form to take the first step toward justice.
