Victor Valley Union High School Dist. v. Super. Ct.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In their complaint, real parties in interest alleged Doe was a minor and a student

enrolled in classes at one of the district’s high schools. Doe required constant adult

supervision in or outside the classroom. School personnel had reassured Doe’s father that

Doe would not be allowed to move freely around the campus unsupervised “because of

his susceptibility to suggestion and [because he] might wander anywhere with anyone.”

In addition, at the time, the school had a policy that, during lunch periods, a special

education student who needed to use the restroom was required to ask an instructional

assistant to unlock the gender-appropriate restroom inside the cafeteria and only one

special education student was permitted to be inside the restroom.

Real parties in interest alleged that, on or about March 8, 2019, two male students

took Doe, who was not supervised by an adult at the time, to a restroom where they

sexually assaulted him. The same two students had sexually assaulted Doe on five or six

prior occasions, and they threatened Doe that if he told anyone what had happened or if

he resisted inappropriate sexual advances…