In this article 5 sections
For years, many survivors of sexual assault in California watched the legal clock run out before they could act. The trauma of the assault, the fear of retaliation, and in many cases the active concealment of what happened by employers, institutions, or perpetrators kept victims silent long past the standard filing deadlines. California’s legislature has now responded directly to that reality.
Assembly Bill 250 took effect on January 1, 2026. It creates a limited window, open through December 31, 2027, for survivors who were sexually assaulted as adults to bring civil claims that would otherwise be barred by expired statutes of limitations. A revived claim against an employer, school, or other entity requires an allegation that the entity covered up, or tried to cover up, earlier sexual assaults or allegations against the alleged perpetrator. This is a significant development in California personal injury law, and if it applies to your situation, the time to evaluate your options is now.
What AB 250 Actually Does
California’s standard statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. For sexual assault of an adult, California already had a longer deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16: the later of 10 years from the last act of sexual assault, or three years from the date the survivor discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that an injury or illness resulted from the assault. AB 250 does not change that deadline. It goes further by reviving claims that had already expired before January 1, 2026. (A separate provision of section 340.16 already revives expired claims based on assaults on or after January 1, 2009, and those may be filed until December 31, 2026.)
The statute defines a cover-up broadly 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,” including the use of nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements. That reaches institutional concealment, not just individual perpetrators hiding their conduct. For a revived claim against an employer, school, religious organization, healthcare provider, or other entity, the survivor must allege that the entity, or its officers, employees, or agents, covered up or tried to cover up a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by the alleged perpetrator. Claims against the perpetrator personally are revived as well. AB 250 also revives related claims arising out of the assault, so a survivor who was wrongfully terminated after reporting an assault may be able to bring that claim alongside the assault claim.
The revival window closes on December 31, 2027. Claims that qualify must be filed by that date, unless they were already pending in court when the law took effect. There is no indication the legislature intends to extend this deadline again, so treating it as firm is the only responsible approach.
Who Qualifies Under This Law
Not every survivor with an expired claim qualifies. For claims against an employer or other entity, AB 250 is specifically aimed at cases where a cover-up is part of the factual record. To benefit from the revival window against an entity, a survivor generally needs to allege that the assault occurred when they were 18 or older, that the normal filing deadline has passed, that one or more entities or persons are legally responsible for the harm, and that an entity covered up or tried to cover up earlier sexual assaults or allegations against the alleged perpetrator. The revival does not apply to claims against public entities, or to claims that were litigated to a final judgment or resolved in a written settlement before January 1, 2026.
Cover-up conduct can take many forms. An employer who pressured an earlier victim of the same manager to stay quiet, or settled an earlier complaint with a non-disclosure agreement, may have engaged in the kind of institutional concealment AB 250 targets. A school that moved an accused staff member without disclosing the reason, or a healthcare organization that buried internal complaints about a provider, may also fall within the statute’s reach.
AB 250 applies to assaults that happened when the survivor was 18 or older. Survivors who were minors at the time of the assault are covered by a different statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, which has its own, generally longer, deadlines, and no deadline at all for assaults on or after January 1, 2024. If you are unsure whether your situation qualifies, that question is exactly what an initial consultation with a personal injury attorney is designed to answer.
The Injuries AB 250 Recognizes as Compensable
Sexual assault is a serious physical injury, not only an emotional one. John Reardon spent nearly two decades as a chiropractor before becoming a personal injury attorney, and that clinical background shapes how we approach these cases. Survivors frequently present with chronic musculoskeletal pain, sleep disorders, somatic symptoms tied to trauma, and long-term neurological effects of sustained stress responses. These are real, documentable physical injuries with measurable treatment costs.
Under California law, a civil claim for sexual assault can seek compensation for medical expenses, including past and future mental health treatment, physical therapy, and any other care connected to the assault. Lost wages and diminished earning capacity are recoverable where the assault or the cover-up, such as a wrongful termination, disrupted the survivor’s career. Non-economic damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life are also available and often represent the largest component of a sexual assault settlement or verdict.
Where an entity engaged in a deliberate cover-up, punitive damages may also be available under California Civil Code section 3294. Punitive damages are designed to punish conduct that is malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent, and institutional concealment of sexual assault can meet that standard. The possibility of punitive damages significantly increases the potential value of these claims compared to cases involving only compensatory losses.
Building a Case Under AB 250
Evidence in a sexual assault case with a cover-up component often looks different from a standard personal injury file. Physical evidence from the assault itself may no longer exist, but the cover-up frequently leaves a documentary trail. Internal communications, HR records, non-disclosure agreements, termination paperwork, and witness accounts from colleagues or other survivors can all be relevant. In institutional cases, prior complaints about the same perpetrator are particularly important because they can establish that the organization knew about the conduct and chose to suppress it rather than act.
Medical and mental health records documenting treatment after the assault establish both the injury and its timeline. A journal or contemporaneous notes made by the survivor, even informal ones, can corroborate the account and demonstrate the ongoing impact of the trauma. If the survivor reported the assault to anyone, including a friend, family member, or coworker, those individuals may be witnesses.
We approach evidence gathering in these cases with the understanding that survivors have often carried this burden alone for years. The goal is to build a factual record that supports the claim without requiring the survivor to relive every detail unnecessarily. That means being strategic about what evidence we pursue and how we present it.
What to Do Before the 2027 Deadline
The December 31, 2027 deadline is not a suggestion. Once it passes, claims that depended on AB 250’s revival window will be permanently barred. Given that civil litigation takes time, including investigation, filing, service, and pre-trial proceedings, waiting until late 2027 to consult an attorney creates real risk of running out of time to build a proper case.
The first step is a confidential consultation with a personal injury attorney who understands both the legal framework of AB 250 and the medical realities of sexual assault trauma. At that consultation, we evaluate whether the cover-up element is present, what evidence may be available, who the responsible parties are, and what categories of compensation apply to your situation.
From there, the process involves gathering and preserving evidence, identifying all potentially liable parties, and making a demand or filing suit within the statutory window. In cases involving institutional defendants, early action also matters because organizations sometimes attempt to destroy or limit access to internal records once litigation is anticipated. A litigation hold letter sent early in the process can prevent that.
If you or someone you know may have a claim that AB 250 revives, we encourage you to reach out to us for a free, confidential consultation. We handle these cases on a contingency basis, meaning you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you. The window California has opened for survivors is real, but it is also finite. We are here to help you evaluate your options and act before that window closes.