A colleague flagged the same teacher twice, and now a jury decides what she knew
A principal who was warned twice about a teacher can be sued in her own name, an Ohio appeals court ruled.
On August 20, 2026, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held that South-Western City School District could not use government immunity to escape a claim that it failed to report suspected child abuse. The court kept the district's immunity on related negligence claims but let the reporting claim, and the full case against the principal, move forward.
The teacher pleaded guilty in January 2024 to two felony counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and was sentenced to six years in prison. He had taught the student in eighth grade and coached her in middle school sports. In 2023, the former student sued the district, its board, and the principal, saying staff missed or ignored years of warning signs.
Ohio law requires teachers and administrators to report suspected child abuse and attaches civil liability to those who fail to do so. The district argued that, as a government body, it was immune. The court disagreed on the reporting claim, following state Supreme Court precedent that districts lose immunity when they or their staff fail to report. It agreed the district kept immunity on negligent supervision and security claims, treating those as part of the governmental function of running schools.
The principal said she knew nothing. The record complicated that. A former teacher testified that she reported the teacher's behavior twice - once after he told a middle-school girl "she looked really good," and again after students described him as "really inappropriate." The principal acknowledged in her deposition that she never investigated or reported either. One former student texted that administrators "just pretended like it was gossip."
The court held that a jury could find the principal either knew or stayed "willfully blind," which would strip the immunity that normally protects public employees.
For HR and compliance leaders, the split is the whole story: a report that lands on a manager's desk demands a documented response. Immunity covered how the district ran its buildings. It did not cover a legal duty to report that went unanswered - and the manager who took the complaints can be sued personally.
The court did not decide whether anyone was negligent. It returned the case for further proceedings, where both can still defend the claims. No jury has ruled.
