West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Contra Costa County Superior Court
Public Justice filed an amicus brief to defend a California law that gives thousands of sexual abuse survivors access to justice by lifting the harsh deadlines that used to bar their claims.
Plaintiff Jane Doe was sexually abused by her school guidance counselor at Richmond High School in West Contra Costa Unified School District in California from 1979–1983. Her repeated complaints to school administrators fell on deaf ears: when she reported the abuse to a school administrator, he told her the counselor simply had a “touchy feely” and “flirtatious” personality. The school did nothing to stop the abuse. As a result, the counselor sexually assaulted her at least twice per month for her entire high school career.
Like thousands of victims of childhood sexual abuse, Jane did not file a legal claim at the time.
In 2019, however, California passed a law that opened a three-year window for childhood sexual abuse survivors to file claims that were previously barred by legal deadlines. Before, survivors like Jane had to file claims with the school district within months of their abuse before they could file suit in court—and if they missed the deadline, like Jane did, they lost their right to sue. California’s law removed that requirement and gave survivors like Jane another chance to file a lawsuit against their abusers and the institutions that enabled the abuse.
Jane sued the school district in California state court, but the school district immediately urged the court to dismiss the case. It argued that the new California law violates a part of the California Constitution that says the state cannot give a “gift” of public funds unless it serves a “public purpose.” 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 California Superior Court disagreed, deciding that the new law was constitutional. In doing so, however, it parted ways with at least one other court that found the law was unconstitutional.
The school district appealed to the First District California Court of Appeal, which agreed to hear the case. Public Justice authored an amicus brief in support of Jane, joined by CHILD USA, Equal Rights Advocates, and National Center for Victims of Crime. The brief argues that California’s law is not a “gift” because it just provides a path for thousands of victims of childhood sexual abuse to recover the compensation their abusers and enablers have long owed them. The brief catalogues the lifelong psychological and economic effects of sexual abuse—and explains why most survivors do not come forward until well into adulthood. California’s new law rightly recognizes these realities and gives thousands of survivors long-needed relief.
We await the court’s ruling.
