LEARN
MORE

New Law Expanding Time Period For Sexual Assault Claims Was Not A Gift of Public Funds

CATEGORY: Client Update for Public Agencies
CLIENT TYPE: Public Employers
DATE: Sep 09, 2024

A student alleged she was repeatedly assaulted by her high school counselor between 1979 and 1983. While she was still in high school, the student told school administrators about the assaults, but the school did nothing to stop the abuse. The student did not file a claim at the time.

California Assembly Bill No. 218 (AB 218), was enacted in 2019 and provides a three-year window within which people can bring childhood sexual assault claims against public entities that would otherwise be barred because of statutes of limitations or claim presentation requirements. Before the enactment of AB 218, sexual assault victims had to file claims with the school district within months of their abuse before they could file suit in court or lose their right to sue. The 2019 law removed that requirement and gave sexual assault victims another chance to file lawsuits.

The student used this law to sue the school district, but the school district urged the court to dismiss the case. The district argued that the new law violated the part of the California Constitution that prohibits the state from giving a “gift” of public funds. The district said that because the law gave sexual abuse survivors something they didn’t have before—the right to sue in court—it gave them an unconstitutional “gift.” The district also contended that AB 218 violated its right to due process.

The California Court of Appeal rejected the district’s arguments, concluding that AB 218’s retroactive, statutory waiver of the claim presentation requirement was not unconstitutional. The court explained that the retroactive waiver of the claim presentation requirement did not create any new liability or cause of action against the district. The Court held that law was not a “gift” because it served a public purpose by making previously unenforceable claims actionable. The Court also held that expenditures on behalf of disadvantaged groups served a public purpose as well.

West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 103 Cal.App.5th 1243 (2024).

View More News

Client Update for Public Agencies, Public Education Matters
Nationwide Injunction Halts Affordable Care Act’s Prohibition of Discrimination Based on Gender Identity
READ MORE
Client Update for Public Agencies, Private Education Matters, Public Education Matters
Terminated Employee Was Not Protected by the FMLA for Time Off to Travel and Wait for the Birth of His Child
READ MORE