Survivors often stay silent for reasons that have nothing to do with what happened to them. Some may have been pressured by an employer, some signed agreements they believed kept them from speaking, and others were told no one else had ever complained.
California lawmakers passed the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act, or AB 250, with these situations in mind.
The new law gives adult survivors of sexual assault a limited lookback window to file civil claims that were otherwise barred by the statute of limitations. The window runs from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027. The law is designed specifically to address sexual abuse and assaults that institutions, including private workplaces and organizations, covered up.
AB 250 does not limit eligibility based on when the assault occurred. It allows claims against private employers and other non-government organizations alleged to have covered up sexual assault, and it also revives qualifying claims against the perpetrator.
While this law helps to address some of the challenges assault survivors face, such as the ability to come forward within the statute of limitations, not all claims are addressed. The law specifically exempts public entities.
A sexual assault attorney can review whether a claim falls within AB 250 and what other options may be available.
The AB 250 Filing Deadline & Lookback Window
AB 250 granted a two-year revival window for claims arising from a sexual assault that occurred on or after the survivor’s 18th birthday, that would otherwise have been barred before January 1, 2026, solely because the statute of limitations had expired. Qualifying claims may be filed through December 31, 2027, and qualifying claims already pending in court on January 1, 2026, may proceed.
Under California law (California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16), a sexual assault claim must ordinarily be filed by whichever of these dates is later:
- Ten years after the last act or attempted act of sexual assault; or
- Three years after the survivor discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that an injury or illness resulted from the assault.
AB 250 does not change those deadlines. It revives qualifying claims that had already expired under them, and only for a limited time. After December 31, 2027, a claim that depends on AB 250’s revival provision generally cannot be filed.
Who May Qualify Under AB 250
AB 250 sets out specific conditions, and the requirements differ depending on who the claim is against.
General requirements under AB 250 (California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16(e)):
- The survivor was 18 years or older at the time of the assault.
- For a claim against an employer or other organization, the survivor alleges that the organization is legally responsible for damages arising from the assault, and that it or its officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents covered up or attempted to cover up a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault (explained below).
- The claim would otherwise have been barred before January 1, 2026, solely because the statute of limitations had expired.
- The claim was not previously litigated to finality in court or resolved by a written settlement agreement before January 1, 2026.
A civil claim against an abuser or a potentially liable entity is separate from any criminal case. A survivor does not need a police report, a criminal charge, or a conviction to determine whether they qualify to file a civil claim under AB 250. If you are not sure whether your situation meets these criteria, that is normal. These requirements are technical, and a confidential conversation with an attorney is the simplest way to find out.
Who Can Be Held Responsible Under AB 250
A survivor may be able to bring claims against more than one party. AB 250 expressly revives qualifying claims against the person who committed the assault. A claim may also be brought against a private employer or other organization that is legally responsible for the assault, which the statute defines to include liability based on negligence, intentional torts, and vicarious liability. For a claim against an organization, the survivor must allege that the organization, or its officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, covered up or attempted to cover up a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault. As mentioned above, claims against public entities are excluded under AB 250.
For claims against organizations, AB 250 centers on allegations of an institutional cover-up, which the statute defines as a concerted effort to hide evidence of sexual assault, keep people silent, or keep information from becoming public or reaching the survivor. That might include an organization alleged to have hidden earlier complaints about the perpetrator, pressured witnesses to stay quiet, or used confidentiality agreements to keep prior allegations from coming to light. The law applies to businesses and organizations other than public entities, which may include offices, clinics, hospitals, hotels, private schools, and nonprofits.
Related Claims AB 250 May Revive
AB 250 may also revive related claims arising from the same sexual assault. The statute names wrongful termination and sexual harassment as examples, though a claimant may be able to bring retaliation allegations.
Survivors who were assaulted at work, then fired, forced out, or silenced may have multiple legal claims. Whether a related claim is revived depends on whether it arises out of the same assault that forms the basis of the AB 250 claim. If you are unsure about your legal rights, please contact an attorney who can review the circumstances and discuss your options.
NDAs, Confidentiality Agreements, and Cover-Ups
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and confidentiality agreements may be common practice in many industries, but they may also be part of a cover-up when it comes to sexual abuse. California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16(e)(5)(A) defines cover-up as a “concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that incentivizes individuals to remain silent” or prevents information relating to a sexual assault from becoming public or being disclosed to the plaintiff. It notes that this includes, but is not limited to, the use of nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements.
A survivor who previously signed one of these agreements after reporting sexual abuse may still be able to pursue a claim. These agreements may serve as evidence of a cover-up or attempted cover-up in some instances. Because the statute refers to a cover-up of “a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse,” the concealed conduct at issue may involve earlier events, not only the survivor’s own assault. A survivor does not need to prove a cover-up existed in order to contact an attorney. Evidence of a cover-up may be held by the organization itself and obtained through discovery once a lawsuit is filed.
If you signed an agreement and have felt for years that you couldn't talk about what happened, you can still speak confidentially with a lawyer about whether that agreement affects your options. The consultation is free, and you can ask any questions you would like to understand your rights.
How AB 250 Compares to AB 2777
AB 250 is not California’s only adult sexual assault lookback law. AB 2777 also amended section 340.16. Among other changes, it extended the deadline to sue for assaults that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, giving survivors until December 31, 2026 to file. AB 2777 also opened a separate one-year window for cover-up claims, but that window closed on December 31, 2023.
The two laws differ in ways that matter:
- Date of the assault: AB 250 has no cutoff for when the assault occurred, so a survivor assaulted before 2009 may still have a path under AB 250 even though AB 2777’s extended deadline does not apply.
- Cover-up requirement: A revived claim against an organization under AB 250 requires an allegation that the organization covered up or attempted to cover up sexual assault. AB 2777’s extended deadline has no such requirement.
- Filing deadline: The AB 250 window stays open a year longer, until December 31, 2027.
Survivors may qualify under one law or both, depending on the facts of the claim. Some claims may not qualify under either, which is why any allegation of sexual misconduct should be reviewed by an experienced attorney.
What Claims Fall Outside of AB 250
AB 250 does not reopen claims that have been litigated to finality in court or resolved by a written settlement agreement before January 1, 2026. The law also excludes claims against public entities. Claims against a government employer, public school, public university, or other public agency are generally subject to the presentation requirements and deadlines of California’s Government Claims Act. Claims arising from sexual assault that occurred before the survivor’s 18th birthday are governed by different laws, including AB 218 and AB 452.
A Path Forward for California Survivors
Wisner Baum represents survivors of sexual assault nationwide. Our firm continues to review claims that may fall within the AB 250 revival window, which ends on December 31, 2027.
If you or someone you love was sexually assaulted and the organization involved kept it quiet, you do not have to sort through these rules alone. A consultation is free, confidential, carries no obligation, and you decide how much to share.
Because preparing a case takes time, reaching out sooner leaves more room to explore your options. Survivors of sexual abuse are encouraged to contact Wisner Baum at (310) 207-3233 to schedule a free, confidential consultation.
