In a Sexual Abuse Case Where the Victim Feared Retaliation for Revealing the Abuse, a Claim May be Valid Beyond the Normal Legal Deadline

Issue

In John Doe v. Bakersfield City School District (2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1587, Cal.App. 5 Dist., Feb. 7, 2006), a California Court of Appeal considered a case in which a student who was sexually abused by a school guidance counselor for several years, brought action against the school district after the abuse ended, and he had graduated from high school and reached adulthood.

The court ruled that despite bringing his claims against the district after deadlines for doing so had passed, the victim could rightfully invoke “equitable estoppel” to seek relief from the deadlines because he continued to fear retaliation from his abuser.

Facts

John Doe (“Student”) is a fictitious name for a student in the Bakersfield City School District (“District”), who was first befriended by a school guidance counselor, then repeatedly coerced into sexual activity with that counselor, beginning in his seventh grade year and continuing into his high school and college years. The counselor constantly threatened Student with public embarrassment and humiliation if he tried to end the abuse or if he revealed it.

After learning that his counselor had come under criminal investigation for molesting students, and after receiving psychotherapy and being entered into a witness protection program, the Student finally, for the first time in over eight years, came to believe the counselor could not make good on his threats. He then filed a claim against the District.

The District denied his claim, saying that because more than six months had passed since he was last molested, Student’s claim was not timely. Student then filed a government tort claim seeking relief from the District’s late-claim denial. The trial court denied the petition, saying that since Student had graduated from high school, left the District, reached adulthood, and no longer had a relationship with the counselor, he was not entitled to make a late claim against the District. The Student appealed.

Decision

The appellate court found that because of the unique circumstances in this case, the trial court had abused its discretion by disallowing Student’s claim. Those unique circumstances involved the many years of ongoing coercion and abuse, the threat of retaliation, and the fact that Student acted swiftly after receiving psychological help and becoming confident that his abuser could no longer harm him.

Although most case law involving sexual abuse is from cases brought by minors, “nothing in those cases suggests that an adult victim of sexual abuse, which began when the victim was a minor and continued into adulthood, is precluded from raising the doctrine of equitable estoppel in a lawsuit against a public entity,” the court said.

The court also found no legal basis to support the trial court’s ruling that Student’s age, graduation, departure from the District, and the end of his relationship with his abuser, were valid reasons for denying his claim. The more relevant fact, the court said, is that the threats against him continued to deter his taking action. “The question of whether plaintiff acted in a reasonable time is measured from the time the deterrent effect of the unconscionable conduct of the District or its agent ceased,” the court ruled.

Given that standard, Student was entitled to seek relief. The trial court’s denial was reversed.

Legal Alert Disclaimer

Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.