Can you sue a school for sexual abuse?

By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.

If you or your child needs support now, RAINN offers a free, confidential hotline at 800-656-4673, 24 hours a day, in English and Spanish. Call 911 if a child is in danger.

Public and private schools at a glance

Title IX can apply to either kind of school if it runs an education program that receives federal financial assistance (20 U.S.C. 1681). Filing deadlines are covered separately on our sexual abuse statute of limitations page.

California: the district answers for its administrators

A public entity in California is liable for injuries caused by an employee acting within the scope of employment when the employee could be sued personally (Gov. Code 815.2(a)). In C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012), a high school student alleged that the head guidance counselor sexually abused the student and that administrators knew or should have known of her history. The California Supreme Court held that a district may be vicariously liable under section 815.2 “for the negligence of administrators or supervisors in hiring, supervising and retaining a school employee.” It rested that duty on “a special relationship arising from the mandatory character of school attendance,” and it said liability must be based on evidence of negligent hiring, supervision or retention.

Two procedural rules help survivors. Childhood sexual assault claims under CCP 340.1 against local public entities are exempt from the usual government claim requirement (Gov. Code 905(m)), and a local agency’s own claim procedures do not apply to them (Gov. Code 935(f)). One limit cuts the other way. In Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2023), the court held that Gov. Code 818 bars the enhanced cover-up damages of CCP 340.1(b) against a public entity. A private school does not get that protection.

Texas: immunity limits and the federal route

The Texas Tort Claims Act waives immunity for injuries from the use of a motor vehicle or motor-driven equipment and for injuries caused by a condition or use of tangible property (CPRC 101.021). For schools, section 101.051 is short: “Except as to motor vehicles, this chapter does not apply to a school district or to a junior college district.” That leaves a Texas public district largely outside the state-law negligence claims a private school can face.

Federal law is often the main route against a Texas district, and the leading case came from one. In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist. (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a district is liable in damages for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student only if an official with authority to address it and take corrective action had actual knowledge and responded with deliberate indifference. Section 101.051 is written for school districts, so it does not shield a private school. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou.

Washington: districts must anticipate foreseeable dangers

Washington’s rule is old and direct. In McLeod v. Grant County School District No. 128 (1953), a 12-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by other students during a noon recess, in a room off the gymnasium that a teacher had been assigned to watch, and the court allowed her case to proceed, saying a district’s duty “is to anticipate dangers which may reasonably be anticipated.” The court relied on McLeod again in N.L. v. Bethel School Dist. (2016). There, a principal had been told that an older student was a registered sex offender, did nothing, and the student assaulted a 14-year-old track athlete after the two left campus instead of going to practice. The court held that districts owe students in their care reasonable care to protect them from foreseeable dangers, and that an assault off campus did not by itself end the district’s duty. Whether the district breached its duty, and whether that caused the harm, were questions for a jury.

Title IX: two Supreme Court standards

Title IX says no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or “subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (20 U.S.C. 1681(a)). The Supreme Court has allowed Title IX damages claims for sexual harassment of students, and the test depends on who did it:

• Abuse by a teacher or other employee: Gebser requires actual knowledge by an official who could act, and deliberate indifference.
• Abuse by another student: in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), the Court held a school liable only where it is deliberately indifferent to known harassment that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it deprives the victim of access to education.

Both standards are hard to meet, which is why state negligence claims matter wherever they are available.

What this means for your case

Write down what you remember about who at the school was told, when, and what they did, and keep any texts, emails or report numbers. The type of school and the state shape which claims are open: a negligence suit, a Title IX claim, or both. Claims against other organizations, such as churches and youth programs, are covered in our FAQ on institutional sexual abuse claims. If the case goes forward, our page on what happens at a deposition explains one step that worries many families. More answers are on our injury law FAQs page.

Common questions

Related pages

Injury law FAQs

Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. Last reviewed: November 7, 2026.