A missing harassment policy didn't sink the district - but something else nearly did
A New York appeals court split a school district's negligence case on what the employer knew - and when the worker reported the alleged abuse.
On July 8, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reshaped a negligence case against the White Plains Public School District and its board of education, and the outcome came down to timing.
The former employee sued in July 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, saying he was sexually abused during his employment by the district's then-superintendent. He brought claims for negligence, for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and for negligent infliction of emotional distress, plus a demand for punitive damages.
The court drew a clear line between what happened before and after the employee said he reported the abuse to his direct supervisor. For conduct alleged after that disclosure, the claims lived on. The plaintiff had raised a triable issue - a genuine factual dispute for a jury - over whether the district had actual or constructive knowledge of the superintendent's conduct.
For conduct alleged before the disclosure, the claims were dismissed. The district showed it had no notice. A board member from the era when the superintendent was hired testified she never heard any allegations or rumors of sexual abuse before the lawsuit landed, and she described the board's vetting during hiring. The district's clerk and two board members echoed that account, and the clerk swore that district and board records - meeting minutes and personnel files included - showed no reports of alleged abuse.
Here is the part HR professionals will want to sit with. The plaintiff pointed to the district's lack of a sexual harassment policy and reporting practices at the time. The court said that fact, standing alone, did not create a triable issue on notice, because there was no allegation the district had fallen short of the standard of care that was reasonable back then. A policy gap, in other words, was not the same thing as knowledge.
The district and the board had also tried to end the case with the Workers' Compensation Law, which typically limits an injured employee to workers' comp benefits rather than a lawsuit against the employer. That argument collapsed. Neither defendant established that it actually carried workers' compensation insurance during the relevant period, or that the employee had received benefits - and a supporting affirmation came too late, filed for the first time in reply.
The board also obtained partial relief. Searching the record, the court granted the board summary judgment on the vicarious liability portions of the negligence claims, on the emotional distress claim, and on the demand for punitive damages. The ruling modified the trial court's May 30, 2025 order and otherwise upheld it.
This was a decision on motions, not a finding of fact. The court sorted out which claims could proceed; it did not decide whether the alleged abuse happened. Those claims still have to be tried, and the allegations remain unproven.
