Court opinion shows why districts need to respond to allegations
August 5, 2019
A recent California appeals court decision highlights the need for school districts to promptly handle reports of inappropriate behavior by employees. According to a news brief from the law firm of Lozano Smith, this opinion will likely allow for a broader spectrum of evidence to be introduced to support claims of negligence against school districts in child abuse cases. The case In D.Z v. Los Angeles Unified School District, student D.Z. filed a lawsuit alleging negligence by Los Angeles Unified School District, her alleged teacher abuser, and other district employees. D.Z.’s negligence claims included the allegation that the district failed to properly train and supervise relevant employees related to a claim that one of her school teachers sexually abused her. D.Z. further alleged that the district knew or should have known of the danger posed by the teacher, and the district’s failure to respond appropriately to that knowledge resulted in harm to her. As trial approached, there were numerous witnesses prepared to testify on behalf of D.Z. regarding past misconduct by the teacher and the district’s knowledge of such conduct. However, prior to trial, the trial court determined to exclude all evidence of the teacher’s alleged misconduct, other than evidence relating to the touching of students. The jury found in favor of the district, a decision D.Z. then appealed. The appeal The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and concluded that because the trial court drew a bright line in excluding all evidence of the teacher’s conduct other than physical touching, it arbitrarily excluded evidence that was relevant to D.Z.’s claims. The Court of Appeal found that under Evidence Code section 352, evidence relevant to prove any element of the underlying cause of action could be admissible. The trial court incorrectly concluded that any evidence other than of physical touching was irrelevant. The evidence excluded included a crude comment made by the teacher regarding the size of a student’s breasts, and the teacher’s inappropriate questions to students about their boyfriends and sexual experiences. Such comments were said to have been reported to the district prior to D.Z.’s first report to the school principal regarding the teacher’s conduct, and were seen as crucial to D.Z.’s argument that the district knew or should have known the risk that the teacher would commit sexual abuse of a student. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. Takeaway for districts According to the Lozano Smith brief, the Court of Appeal’s opinion is likely to be relied upon by plaintiffs’ attorneys to seek to introduce at trial a broader spectrum of evidence supporting claims of negligence brought against school districts in the child abuse context. Correspondingly, the action or inaction of a district in relation to an employee alleged to have abused a student may impact the relevant evidence potentially admissible at trial. This underscores the importance of school districts’ prompt and thorough handling of complaints received regarding their employees’ alleged inappropriate behavior. Upon receipt of such complaints, districts should not only document the complaint, but also the remediation and reasonable steps taken to protect students and ensure that the employee’s behavior cannot recur. To read this complete brief, visit
www.LozanoSmith.com
.
Contact Us
|
www.acsa.org

© 2019 Association of California School Administrators
ACSA EdCal logo.
Association of California School Administrators
Association of California School Administrators