## Facts

- John R., a 14-year-old ninth-grade student, attended a junior high school operated by Oakland Unified School District.
- John joined a district-sanctioned instructional work-experience program in which students received school credit and pay for assisting teachers, including correcting papers.
- John’s mathematics teacher recruited him into the program and required that some tasks be performed at the teacher’s off-campus apartment.
- During multiple apartment visits connected to the program, the teacher allegedly coerced John into sexual acts by using his authority and threatening academic and reputational consequences.
- John delayed disclosure for months; about ten months after the first incident he informed his father, and his mother then reported the matter to the district and police (December 1981).
- Criminal charges were filed against the teacher but were later dismissed.
- John and his parents sued the teacher and the district, asserting (1) vicarious liability under respondeat superior for the teacher’s misconduct and (2) direct negligence theories including negligent hiring, supervision, and failure to protect.

## Issues

1. Whether a public school district may be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for a teacher’s sexual molestation of a student occurring off campus but facilitated by a school-sanctioned work-experience program.
2. Whether claims against the district were barred by claim-presentation and timeliness requirements of the California Tort Claims Act, or whether equitable estoppel could prevent the district from asserting those defenses.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the district was not vicariously liable because the teacher’s sexual misconduct was outside the scope of employment.
- The Court rejected a rule imposing vicarious liability merely because job-conferred authority made the misconduct possible.
- The Court recognized that the district could still face liability for its own negligence (e.g., hiring, supervision, student protection) if proven.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings on the direct negligence claims and on whether equitable estoppel preserved the claims despite delayed reporting under the Tort Claims Act.

## Legal Principles

- Respondeat superior applies only to torts within the scope of employment, assessed by whether the conduct is a generally foreseeable risk typical of, or broadly incidental to, the employer’s enterprise, not by “but for” causation.
- An employee’s intentional sexual molestation of a student is a personal act and an extreme departure from job duties; it is not treated as a risk attributable to the school district’s educational enterprise for vicarious-liability purposes.
- Misuse of job-created authority, without a sufficient enterprise-related connection, does not by itself bring intentional misconduct within the scope of employment.
- Public-entity liability is subject to the California Tort Claims Act’s claim-presentation and limitations requirements, but equitable estoppel may apply where conduct effectively prevents timely compliance, creating a fact question for resolution.

## Conclusion

The court refused to impose respondeat superior liability on a school district for a teacher’s off-campus sexual abuse facilitated by a school program, while allowing plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence theories and to litigate whether equitable estoppel excuses delayed Tort Claims Act compliance.


John R. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 48 Cal. 3d 438, 769 P.2d 948 (Cal. 1989)