OUR FIRM  •  OUR ATTORNEYS  •  OUR LOCATIONS  •  DIVERSITY  •  SEMINARS  •  NEWS  •  RESOURCES  •  SCHOLARSHIPS  •  CONTACT US

School District Found Not Liable for Sexual Abuse Committed by a Former Teacher

June 2009

The California Court of Appeal has found that a school district was not liable for sexual abuse by a former teacher, committed during subsequent employment with another school district.

In P.S. v. San Bernardino City Unified School District, 2009 WL 1565053, a group of first graders sued their school district for alleged molestation by a substitute teacher.  The plaintiffs also sued three other school districts, which had previously employed the teacher.  In addition, the Plaintiffs sued the County Department of Children’s Services and the County Superintendent of Schools.

In the Complaint, the plaintiffs cited, among other things, incidents at the three prior schools where the teacher was discovered acting improperly with students.  In two cases, the school districts permanently banned the teacher from teaching at their schools and, in one instance, the school district reported the incident to the County Superintendent of Schools.  The plaintiffs alleged that the former school districts were liable for failing to report the incidents to authorities under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (“CANRA”) and allowing the teacher to continue working as a substitute in other school districts.

The Court of Appeal upheld previous rulings that a school district cannot be civilly liable for failing to report a case of suspected child abuse under CANRA.  It found that a school district can only be found negligent for failing to discharge its duty to protect students at school, taking into account any facts that the school district might have about a particular employee's conduct with students.

The Court of Appeal revisited a 1997 California Supreme Court decision, Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 1066, to examine whether a prior school district employer could be held liable for subsequent abuse under another school district's employment.  In Randi W., a vice principal was found to have molested students.  Upon resigning his position, the school district provided him with positive job references, leading to his employment at another district where, again, he committed sexual abuse.  The California Supreme Court held that the prior district could not be liable under a theory of negligence because it no longer had any supervision over the employee and could not be charged with knowledge of what might be happening at the other school district.  In other words, without actual knowledge or the opportunity to observe a child in the course of the school district's care over a particular student, the former school district could not form a reasonable suspicion of child abuse and, therefore, could not be charged with negligence for failing to act.  However, in that particular case, the former school district could be liable under theories of fraud or negligent misrepresentations for providing positive references for an employee who was known to have harmed students.

In P.S., however, there were no facts comparable to those in Randi W.  The former school districts had no custodial care over the plaintiffs and therefore owed no duty to protect them.  Moreover, they had taken no action to see that the substitute teacher was re-employed.  Thus, the court stated that the former school districts could not be held liable because, as stated in Randi W., there is no open-ended liability to children who might be conceivably harmed in the future.

While this case is helpful in limiting the liability of school districts in sexual abuse cases, it emphasizes the importance of seriously investigating cases when information is presented about current personnel.  Moreover, it indicates that school districts should not provide positive references to former employees who have engaged in improper conduct.

This F3 NewsFlash is a summary only and not legal advice.  We recommend that you consult with legal counsel to determine how this case may apply to your specific facts and circumstances.   Information on a free NewsFlash subscription can be found at www.fagenfriedman.com.