School district accused of failing to report and warn against teacher's sexual abuse of students
A former student filed a lawsuit seeking damages for emotional distress that she experienced allegedly because her fourth-grade teacher molested her on multiple occasions from 2009 to 2010 when she was eight years old.
The plaintiff and five other former students sued the Mountain View School District and its former employee, the teacher who allegedly sexually abused them as minors. They made the following claims:
- The teacher, who was currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, molested them in the period from 2002 and 2017
- The school district and the teacher were liable for sexual harassment
- The school district was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising the teacher and in failing to warn against, train against, educate against, and report his abuse
- The plaintiff, born in May 2001, started to discover in 2016 that the teacher’s childhood sexual harassment caused her extensive physical, psychological, and emotional damages
Read more: Court refuses to revive sexual abuse claims filed against school district in 2002
The school district learned that a “teenaged family friend” subjected the plaintiff to another “sexual incident” in 2013. This subsequent molestation caused at least some of the plaintiff’s emotional distress injuries and related damages, the district alleged.
The plaintiff filed a motion seeking to exclude the evidence of the 2013 molestation. She invoked sections 1106 and 352 of the Evidence Code as a shield against admitting the evidence.
Section 1106(a) – which aims to protect those alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery – bars courts from admitting evidence of the plaintiff’s sexual conduct to prove that she consented or suffered no injury.
Section 783(d) of the Evidence Code states that the court can allow the defendant to introduce evidence about the plaintiff’s sexual conduct if it is relevant under section 780, which generally covers witness credibility, and if it is admissible under section 352, which permits the court to exclude relevant evidence in certain circumstances.
The trial court excluded the challenged evidence. It held that no shield statute protected this evidence and that the evidence was relevant and admissible relating to the question of whether the teacher’s conduct or a combination of his conduct and the subsequent molestation solely caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress.
The California Court of Appeal also found the evidence regarding the 2013 molestation admissible.
Exclusion in employer’s favor reversed
In the case of Jane S.D. Doe v. S.C. (Mountain View School District), the Supreme Court of California reversed the judgment of the appellate court. The courts apparently failed to apply the crucial protections under sections 783 and 352, the Supreme Court ruled.
Section 783 seeks to safeguard against unwarranted intrusion into the private life of a plaintiff suing based on sexual assault by identifying and restricting the evidence that may attack her credibility, the Supreme Court explained.
On the other hand, section 352 aims to protect the plaintiff’s privacy rights and to limit the introduction of evidence about her sexual conduct, the Supreme Court said.
The trial cour should undertake the proper proceedings required by sections 1106 and 783, the Supreme Court concluded. The Supreme Court directed the trial court:
- to consider any of the school district’s evolved and expansive arguments regarding the relevance and use of the evidence about the 2013 molestation
- to specify what evidence may be introduced and what questions may be asked if it decides to allow evidence of the subsequent molestation
- to engage in the structured focusing and narrowing procedure under section 783
