Thaddeus Harper v Buffalo City School District and Buffalo Board of Education
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
School district liability for historical child sexual abuse under the Child Victims Act (CVA) and CPLR 214-g [statute that reopened time-barred civil claims by survivors of child sexual abuse for a limited revival period].
The Supreme Court, Erie County granted summary judgment dismissing the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action (negligent supervision in loco parentis; negligent hiring; negligent supervision/training; negligent retention).
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed insofar as appealed, denied those parts of the motion, and reinstated the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action.
Plaintiff raised triable issues that defendants had specific notice of the teacher’s inappropriate conduct (locker-room incidents, staff rumors of sexual interest in male students, teacher’s hosting students at his home known to staff) and offered expert proof on training/reporting failures; for negligent hiring/retention, defendants’ own submissions showed red flags (inconsistent arrest answers, adverse references noting dismissal/denial of tenure and inappropriate familiarity with male students, and HR testimony about heightened checks) so defendants failed to meet their initial burden.
Background
Plaintiff alleges that as a seventh or eighth grader in approximately 1975–1976 he was sexually abused by a nonparty music teacher employed by defendants. The action is brought under the Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g). Plaintiff asserted negligent supervision while in loco parentis, negligent hiring, negligent supervision and training of the music teacher and other employees, and negligent retention.
Lower Court Decision
By order entered July 23, 2024, the Supreme Court, Erie County granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously reversed the order insofar as appealed, denied those parts of the motion, and reinstated the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. On negligent supervision/training, plaintiff raised triable issues of specific knowledge/notice, including a gym teacher twice directing the music teacher to leave the boys’ locker room, widespread student rumors known to staff suggesting a sexual interest in male students starting in the 1970s, the teacher’s practice of having students visit his home known to other teachers, and an expert opinion on training/reporting failures. On negligent hiring/retention, defendants’ proof revealed inconsistent arrest disclosures, adverse references reporting dismissal/denial of tenure and inappropriate “palling” with male students, and HR testimony that such red flags would trigger further checks, demonstrating defendants did not meet their initial burden of showing reasonable care.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that, in revived CVA claims, summary judgment is inappropriate where record evidence suggests staff knowledge or notice of inappropriate conduct or hiring/retention red flags. Knowledge acquired by employees within the scope of employment can be imputed to the employer, and adverse references or inconsistent application disclosures can alone preclude summary judgment on negligent hiring/retention decades later.
School districts may face trial on negligent supervision and hiring/retention claims in historical abuse cases when evidence shows rumors, suspicious conduct known to staff, or overlooked hiring red flags; these fact-intensive issues are for the jury, not summary judgment.