Yes, you can sue a school district. When a teacher, coach, aide, counselor, or other school employee sexually abuses a student, California law lets the student, or the adult that student has become, hold the district itself responsible. Here is how it works, in plain terms.
The school is responsible for the adults who looked away
A case against a district is not really about the abuser. It is about the principal who got a complaint and filed it away, the colleagues who noticed and said nothing, the district that hired someone without checking where he came from, and the administrators who moved him to another school instead of calling the police. When the adults in charge knew, or should have known, that an employee was a danger to students and did not act, the district pays for what happened next.
You do not have to prove the district already knew about abuse. It is enough that the warning signs were there and the people in charge ignored them. A teacher alone with one student behind a closed door every lunch period, texts on a confiscated phone, a complaint from a parent that went nowhere: those are the facts a case is built on, and most of them are in the district’s own files.
Teachers are required to report
Every teacher, aide, administrator, coach, and counselor in California is required by law to report suspected child abuse to the police or child protective services, immediately. Telling the principal does not count. When school employees saw something and did not report it, that failure is a crime, and it is some of the strongest evidence in a civil case.
You do not have to file a government claim first
Most lawsuits against a public agency have to start with a written claim within six months. Childhood sexual abuse cases are the exception. The lawsuit is filed directly in court, and the courts have upheld that rule.
Is it too late?
Probably not. If the abuse happened before 2024, you can usually file until you turn 40, or within a few years of realizing as an adult that the abuse caused harm you are living with now (that window is five years today; a law signed in 2026 shortens it to three years starting January 1, 2027). If the abuse happened on or after January 1, 2024, there is no deadline at all. You do not have to file a government claim first. More on deadlines.
What happens, step by step
- You call. You tell us what happened, in as much or as little detail as you want. Nothing is filed unless you decide to go forward.
- We investigate. We pull the teacher’s credential history, any criminal case, earlier lawsuits, and board records, request the district’s files, and find the people who were there.
- We file. The case is filed under a Doe name, so your name stays out of the public record.
- The district has to open its files. Personnel files, complaint logs, investigation reports, and sworn testimony from the administrators who made the decisions.
- Resolution. Most cases settle, usually paid by the district’s insurer. We prepare every case as if it will be tried.
What California school districts have paid
These are publicly reported results from other firms’ cases. They are not our cases, and no past result predicts the outcome of yours.
- Los Angeles Unified paid about $169 million in 2013 and 2014 to the Miramonte Elementary students, $88 million in 2016 for 30 cases involving two other teachers, and in June 2025 approved borrowing up to $500 million to pay decades-old abuse claims. LAUSD.
- A Riverside County jury awarded $135 million against Moreno Valley Unified in October 2023 to two former students abused by a middle school teacher. Moreno Valley Unified.
- Redlands Unified had paid $45.5 million to settle 16 abuse lawsuits by April 2024, and in May 2024 entered a court judgment placing it under state oversight. Redlands Unified.
- Torrance Unified paid $31 million in 2018 to students abused by a high school wrestling coach. Torrance Unified.
- Riverside Unified paid $13.75 million in 2022 to ten former Liberty Elementary students. Riverside Unified.
- Victor Valley Union High School District paid $12.5 million in October 2025 to eight former students abused by a junior high counselor between 1991 and 2002. Victor Valley.
Your district
We have gathered the public record on the districts survivors most often ask about: Los Angeles Unified, Torrance Unified, San Diego Unified, Sweetwater Union, Chula Vista Elementary, Carlsbad Unified, Riverside Unified, Moreno Valley Unified, Redlands Unified, Hesperia Unified, and Victor Valley Union. If your district is not listed, the same rules apply. Private and religious schools are covered separately.
School cases are the center of our practice
Costello & Costello represents students and former students against public and private schools throughout California, on contingency: no attorney fee and no costs unless we recover. Calls are answered 24 hours a day at 877-428-4544, and the first conversation is private and free.
The law behind this page, for lawyers and the curious
A public entity is liable for its employees’ negligence within the scope of employment and for failing to carry out mandatory duties (Gov. Code §§ 815.2, 815.6). C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861 holds that a district may be vicariously liable for supervisors’ negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an abusive employee. Doe v. Lawndale Elementary School District (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 113 and Roe v. Hesperia Unified School District (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 13 confirm that negligence requires only that the district knew or should have known of the risk; Rancho Cucamonga Central School District v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) shows the limit where no one observed or reported anything. Mandated reporting: Pen. Code §§ 11165.7, 11166. Title IX requires actual notice and deliberate indifference (Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) 524 U.S. 274). Claim-presentation exemption: Gov. Code § 905(m), upheld as applied to revived claims in West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243 (review denied). Limitations: Code Civ. Proc. §§ 340.1, 340.11, and 340.12, as enacted or amended by AB 218 (2019), AB 452 and SB 558 (2023), and SB 577 (2026, operative January 1, 2027), including § 340.12’s clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for public-entity cases filed on or after January 1, 2026 by plaintiffs 40 or older.
This page is general information about California law as of October 2026, not legal advice about your situation. Case results described above are drawn from public reports of other cases.
Talk privately with an attorney
We answer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is no cost and no obligation. Nothing is filed without your permission, and nothing you tell us leaves this office.
Talk privately with an attorney