Attorneys for the William S. Hart Union High School District filed an Aug. 24 response denying the district’s liability for a family of a former seventh-grade student suing the district over claims of negligence, negligent hiring, sexual battery and gender violence.
The lawsuit filed July 9 alleges the district is vicariously liable for the “intentional sexual misconduct” of a seventh- and eighth-grade teacher at Sierra Vista Junior High School, who is identified by name in the lawsuit.
The claims were made on behalf of a 12-year-old female student who is not identified in the lawsuit.
The allegations were criminally investigated after the unnamed student plaintiff filed claims with the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station. The investigation was undertaken by the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department’s Special Victims Unit, due to the victim’s age.
The teacher has not been arrested, nor has he faced any criminal charges in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit begins by recounting a cautionary tale the Sierra Vista student was given about the teacher, whom she was warned about by a sibling and “multiple eighth-grade students,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit states that the teacher “had a reputation for making female students uncomfortable through inappropriate physical contact.”
“Plaintiff was also informed that a parent of a younger child had reported that the teacher previously attempted to induce that parent’s older child to remain after school and to engage in inappropriate conversations of a sexual nature,” according to the July 9 complaint.
The lawsuit further alleged the district and its administration had been aware of the pattern of inappropriate behavior for years and failed to act.
On the first day of school, according to the complaint, the teacher caressed the student’s shoulders with both hands from behind while she was sitting down. Two weeks later, he grabbed her by the waist to physically move her aside, per the complaint, which states the contact is “unwanted, offensive and without plaintiff’s consent.”
The lawsuit also states the student spoke to a school counselor about the incident, the counselor said she would follow up on the report, but no meaningful follow-up was conducted, according to the complaint.
The complaints escalated, and the student filed a report with the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station in October, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit states the district then removed the teacher from the classroom and assigned a “long-term substitute.”
The complaint states that the teacher returned to the classroom in February.
Caleb Miller of Miller Wilmers, who represents the student, wrote in an email Monday that the district proposed to move the child after the teacher was put back in the classroom, calling that suggestion “serious indifference to student safety.”
“Litigation is now underway. We have commenced a detailed and expedited investigation through the formal discovery process, and … we will be asking the court for the early trial setting California law … Her family is not interested in delay; they are interested in answers and accountability,” Miller wrote.
“We are aware of recent action by the district’s governing board addressing this teacher’s conduct, and we are encouraged by any genuine step toward accountability,” he added. “As of today, however, we are not aware of any further measures the district has taken to protect our client.”
The district’s preliminary response in court last week stated 20 separate defenses, including that the complaint “fails to state facts sufficient” to justify the lawsuit.
The 20th and final defense claim states: “Defendant is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that defendants acted with due care and in accordance with all statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements at all times.”
Four days before the response to the lawsuit was filed in court, the district’s governing board approved the first reading of a policy that appears to address some of the behavior alleged in the lawsuit.
The district has not said the new policy is directly related to the incidents alleged in the litigation, nor has the district indicated why a new policy was needed.
The policy approved on a first reading at the Aug. 20 meeting, stated: “The board expects all adults with whom students may interact at school or in school-related activities to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards in their interactions with students both within and outside the educational setting, in accordance with this policy and Board Policy – Professional Standards. Such adults shall not engage in threatening, unsafe, unlawful, or inappropriate interactions with students and shall avoid boundary-blurring behaviors that undermine trust in the adult-student relationship and lead to the appearance of impropriety. Adults shall not intrude on a student’s physical or emotional boundaries unless necessary in an emergency or to serve a legitimate purpose related to instruction, counseling, student health, or student or staff safety.”
A source familiar with the situation said there had been several issues that brought about the changes, which also included amendments to a section titled “Inappropriate contact,” in the district’s policy. The board spells out the type of contact the district deems “inappropriate.”
“Employees shall remain vigilant of their position of authority and not abuse it when relating with students. The board prohibits inappropriate conduct between employees and students. Inappropriate employee conduct includes, but is not limited to: 1. Initiating inappropriate physical contact 2. Attempting to form a romantic or sexual relationship with any student or engaging in sexual harassment of a student, including sexual advances, flirtations, requests for sexual favors, inappropriate comments about a student’s body or appearance, or other verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”
The Hart district issued a statement Monday afternoon via email:
“The district takes all allegations seriously and responds appropriately when concerns are brought to our attention. Because this matter is the subject of pending litigation, we are limited in what we can share. We appreciate your understanding of the need to respect the legal process and the privacy of those involved.”
A case-management hearing in the lawsuit was scheduled for December.
