High Court Asked to Widen School Liability for Employee Misconduct

The state Supreme Court was asked Wednesday to expand the liability of school districts for misconduct by employees so that the parents of a 14-year-old boy can sue for the alleged sexual assault of their son by a mathematics teacher.

A lawyer for the parents told the justices a school district should be held liable for damages when an employee improperly uses his job-created authority against his victim.

“If school districts know that they can be held responsible for this kind of thing, it will give them the incentive to do everything they can to prevent it,” said William A. Barnes, an Oakland attorney.

Broad Scope Feared

But the lawyer for the defendant Oakland Unified School District, warning that such a ruling could have “devastating” effects on financially hard-pressed districts, urged the court to bar employer liability for acts clearly unrelated to their official duties.

“A sexual assault is so personal and aberrational that, as a matter of law, it must be deemed outside the scope of employment,” Oakland attorney Ralph A. Lombardi said in the hearing.

California courts are divided over when an employer can be held responsible for wrongful acts by employees while they are on the job. The determination of such liability is often crucial to whether a victim can obtain significant damages.

A state Court of Appeal panel recently overturned a damage award against the city of Los Angeles for the rape of a woman by an on-duty police officer. Previously, however, another appeal panel upheld a suit against Orange County by a woman who claimed she was kidnaped by a deputy sheriff on patrol.

In the case before the state Supreme Court, the parents of a student identified only as John R. sued the Oakland school district, charging that their son was sexually abused while he was at the teacher’s home correcting papers in a school-sanctioned “work experience” program.

In September, a state appellate court upheld the suit, holding that if the teacher was found at trial to have used his authority over the student to commit the alleged assault, such misconduct would be sufficiently related to his job to hold the employer legally responsible.

District officials appealed to the state Supreme Court, warning that the ruling could have far-reaching financial impact on districts that already are finding it difficult or impossible to purchase liability insurance.

The district also challenged a separate ruling by the panel allowing the suit to go forward even though it was not filed within the legal time limit for claims against a public entity.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Marcus M. Kaufman asked Lombardi whether school authorities could not have foreseen the possibility of sexual assaults in view of the “tremendous number of reports” of such incidents.

“Certainly there are more reports these days, and that may be a sad commentary on society,” replied the school district’s attorney. “But we believe this incident was not foreseeable and that the district should not be held responsible.”

School districts, Lombardi said, should not be open to liability merely because their programs present an opportunity for an employee to commit a wrongful act.

Barnes, arguing in behalf of the parents, said they should be able to recover damages without having to prove that the district was negligent in hiring or supervising the teacher. Even when a school district is an innocent party, it should bear the burden of financial compensation for an act in which it plays some role. “That comports with our sense of justice,” he said.

Training a Factor

Justice John A. Arguelles asked Barnes whether districts, to avoid expanded liability, might simply choose to abandon otherwise useful programs where students were in close contact with teachers.

The parents’ lawyer replied that districts should institute employee training programs and take other steps to guard against the possibility of sexual assaults.

“We can’t put our heads in the sand,” said Barnes. “We know this kind of thing can happen and does happen.”

The justices are expected to rule in the case by the end of the year. Meanwhile, according to attorneys, a separate civil suit by the parents is pending against the teacher, who now is retired. Criminal charges brought against the instructor have been dismissed, lawyers said.