A California Court of Appeal recently ruled against a school district’s challenge to the Legislature’s revival of claims involving childhood sexual assault. (West Contra Coast Unified School District v. Superior Court (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243.) The Court ruled that AB 218, which modified the statute of limitations and removed the Government Claims Act requirement for such claims, did not violate the California Constitution. This ruling confirms that, for the time being, claims for childhood sexual assault that fall under AB 218 may proceed against school districts regardless of when they occurred.

Background 

AB 218 was passed October 14, 2019, and made a number of changes related to the adjudication of childhood sexual assault cases. AB 218 modified the statute of limitations for such claims, retroactively removed the Government Claims Act requirement for childhood sexual assault cases, and created a three-year window during which claims could be brought regardless of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation.

The case in question was filed within the three-year window created by AB 218. The District sought to dismiss the case on the grounds that AB 218 violated the gift of public funds prohibition in the California Constitution, by creating after-the-fact liability for the alleged conduct. After the superior court rejected this argument, the Court of Appeal agreed to hear the District’s appeal.

Decision

While previous cases had rejected challenges to AB 218’s changes to the statute of limitations, in this case, the District took a different approach by arguing that when the Legislature waived the Government Claims Act requirement in AB 218, it created liability for a past act. This could have created a gift of public funds, violating the California Constitution.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held the Government Claims Act may determine whether a public entity may be sued, but does not create substantive liability. Therefore, by removing the Government Claims Act requirement, the Legislature did not impact the substantive liability of the school district, and so did not create a gift of public funds.  The Court also concluded the Legislature had provided ample policy support for AB 218 to justify the amendment.  Finally, it rejected the District’s argument that AB 218 violated its due process rights and those of its students as that argument was not raised until appeal.

Impact

Under this ruling, plaintiffs may continue to litigate claims against school districts pursuant to AB 218. It is possible that the school district will seek review of the ruling by the California Supreme Court, which may result in a different outcome.  DWK will keep you informed of any further developments.

If you have any questions about AB 218 or the impact of this case, please reach out to an attorney in DWK’s Litigation Practice Group.