Nanette Boone v. Doe 1, a Public Entity, et al.
Case Background
On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff Nanette Boone filed a sexual assault lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District for negligent supervision and negligent retention of the abuser. The lawsuit pertained to the time she was in Elementary School and was sexually assaulted by her fourth-grade teacher.
The case was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judges Barbara A. Meiers, Thomas D. Long, Michelle Williams Court, and Daniel M. Crowley presided over the case. [Case number: 22STCV36765]
Cause
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), as the Defendant, operated as a public entity in Los Angeles County, California. It had the duty to supervise minor students in its schools, including Nanette Boone’s Elementary School, and to ensure student safety through various programs.
The Plaintiff, Nanette Boone, was a California resident born on February 28, 1965. At the time of the alleged crimes, she was a minor enrolled at the school in 1974.
William Kent Clay, the perpetrator, was a California resident and a fourth-grade teacher employed by the district during this time.
This case involved claims for damages due to childhood sexual assault. In 1974, Boone was in Clay’s fourth-grade class.
During her time in that class, Clay abused Boone. He began with subtle actions that he could easily minimize if questioned. Initially, he bumped into Boone in the supply room, pretending to need to pass by. However, the abuse escalated quickly.
Clay soon manipulated situations to touch Boone inappropriately while she helped him reach items on a ladder. His actions progressed to groping her buttocks and eventually led him to touch her genitals under her dress when they were alone.
Clay also isolated Boone during recess or after school, calling her back to assist him under various pretexts. He began penetrating her vagina with his fingers during these isolated moments.
The abuse intensified, with Clay forcing Boone to masturbate him or to watch him. He often ejaculated on her and provided napkins for her to clean herself afterward.
When Boone recoiled, Clay would tell her to relax and force her legs apart. He insisted that their actions were “our little secret” and rewarded her compliance with art supplies.
Injury
The perpetrator repeatedly sexually harassed, assaulted, molested, and abused Plaintiff, causing her to suffer physical, mental, and emotional injuries.
Damages
As a legal consequence of the above, the Plaintiff suffered injuries to her health, strength, and overall well-being. She sustained bodily injuries along with shock and damage to her nervous system. These injuries caused, and continue to cause her significant mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering. As a result, the Plaintiff experienced substantial damages.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): Nanette Boone
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Anne Andrews | John C. Thornton | Sean Thomas Higgins | Taylor A. Wall
- Defendant(s): Los Angeles Unified School District | William Kent Clay
- Counsel for Defendant(s): Michele M. Goldsmith | Renee B. Brown
Claims
First Cause of Action –
Sexual Assault of a Minor
From around 1974 to 1975, the perpetrator exploited his position of trust and authority as a teacher to sexually assault the Plaintiff and commit crimes against her.
Second Cause of Action –
Negligent Supervision and Protection of a Minor Student
The Defendant, the Los Angeles Unified School District, along with defendants Does 3 through 50, failed to fulfill their duty to supervise and protect the Plaintiff at school. They did not establish or enforce necessary rules and regulations to protect her from sexual assault by the perpetrator on school grounds. Therefore, under the California Government Code section 815.2(a), they were responsible for negligently enabling and allowing the acts of the perpetrator.
Defense
Defendant LAUSD denied each and every allegation in the Complaint. Furthermore, it denied that the Plaintiff experienced any damages, either in the sum alleged or in any amount whatsoever. Additionally, the School District denied that the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries resulted from any acts, omissions, or conduct on its part.
The District asserted that it was not negligent, careless, reckless, or unlawful in any way. Moreover, it stated that it would not be vicariously liable for acts that occurred outside the scope of employment.
The School District informed and believed that if the Plaintiff sustained damages due to the alleged perpetrators’ actions, it bore no liability. This was because, at the time of the wrongful acts or when the Plaintiff sustained damages, the alleged wrongdoers were not acting within the course and scope of any employment or agency relationship with the School District.
Jury Verdict
Court Documents:
Available upon request
Leave A Comment