Weekly Law Resume - November 11, 2010: School District Not Liable for Employee's Sexual Misconduct

more+
less-

C.A., a minor et al., v. William S. Hart Union High School District, et al. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One (November 5, 2010)

This case addresses the pleading requirements for proceeding with a complaint against a school district and its employee for the alleged sexual molestation of a student.

C.A., a minor, filed a complaint through a guardian ad litem, naming as defendants the William S. Hart Union High School District (the "School District"), the head guidance counselor and advisor at the high school (an employee of the School District) and the public high school, alleging eleven causes of action, including negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring, sexual battery, assault, and sexual harassment. The complaint alleged that the guidance counselor sexually harassed, abused and molested C.A. on a number of occasions from January, 2007 to September 14, 2007. The complaint further alleged that the School District "knew that [the guidance counselor] had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct with minors in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct," but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent further unlawful sexual conduct by the guidance counselor.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.