SALEM, Ore. (Legal Newsline) - A group of teachers who claim they were physically and sexually assaulted by elementary school students can sue district officials for failing to come to their aid, an Oregon appeals court ruled, reversing a trial judge’s dismissal of claims.
While Oregon’s Tort Claims Act states it is the “sole cause of action” for torts allegedly committed by government workers acting within the scope of their employment, a jury must decide in this case whether four school administrators were acting in the district’s interest, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in a Sept. 27 decision.
Joyce Moore, a teacher at Woodlawn Elementary and seven other teachers at two more schools sued Portland Public School District 1 in 2018, claiming they were “repeatedly and consistently assaulted by students over the years, and requested help from administrators at every turn.” The abuse included sexual harassment and physical assault and they said they had no “recourse or ways to report the attacks or to create a safe space.”
The plaintiffs named four school officials they said had knowingly and deliberately refused to intervene.
A trial court judge dismissed the claims against individuals, citing OTCA. The judge also dismissed most of the tort claims because the plaintiffs failed to identify the “time, place and circumstances” of their claims in their notice of intent to sue as required under OTCA.
That law requires plaintiffs to notify the district of potential claims within 180 days. The judge dismissed their battery claims because the plaintiffs failed to identify how school employees were responsible for the actions of students.
The appeals court upheld the dismissal of claims arising from incidents that occurred more than 180 days before the plaintiffs filed their notice of intent to sue, saying OTCA is intended to give government officials the opportunity to “ascertain the facts before they become stale.”
The appeals court reversed on the question of battery, citing a previous case in which it allowed a patient at a mental health facility to sue officials for admitting a known violent client who threatened her. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged the district “knew that students were physically aggressive or violent and committing battery against plaintiffs, had the authority to control the students and protect plaintiffs but failed to take any corrective action, and intended to cause the harmful or offensive physical contact.”
The Court of Appeals agreed claims dating more than 180 days before the filings must be dismissed. But the court said claims arising from incidents within the 180-day period must proceed.
The appeals court also rejected the reasoning of the trial judge in dismissing specific claims. The battery claims, for example, might proceed under a theory of aiding and abetting, since the appeals court previously had allowed a patient in a mental institution to sue officials there for admitting a known violent patient who assaulted her.
The court also reversed the dismissal of claims against named officials, saying the question of whether they were acting within the scope of employment when they allegedly failed to address the concerns of the teachers was up to the jury to determine.
The case drew briefs from the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, school boards and city and county governments.