California Court Finds School District Liable for Failure to Protect Student from Bullying

09.08.2025

A California Court of Appeal recently held in E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School District (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1267 (“El Segundo”), that a school district may be held liable for the failure of district employees to properly address student bullying. The court explained the affirmative duty to supervise students on school grounds and act in accordance with the district-developed safety policies also imposes an affirmative duty to protect students from harm caused by other students, and district employees who fail to do so are not entitled to statutory immunity.

In El Segundo, the plaintiff middle school student was bullied by another student that sent messages to plaintiff with profanities, insulted her at school, screamed at her, flipped her off, and on one occasion slapped her on the face. The student also published a petition titled, “Petition to END [plaintiff]’s life.” The plaintiff and her parents repeatedly reported the incidents to the principal and school counselor. The principal met with plaintiff once, and the school counselor met with both students once, but no further action was initially taken. The student was suspended after publication of the petition, but the school did not contact the plaintiff or her parents. The plaintiff sued the district for negligence, asserting the district and the middle school employees owed a duty to protect her from other students’ bullying and to maintain discipline of the school’s students, and obtained a jury award of $1 million in damages.

The district appealed the jury verdict, arguing the Education Code does not impose a mandatory duty on school district employees to protect students from other students’ behavior. The court of appeal disagreed, explaining: “California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection.”[1] The court reasoned that the mandatory character of school attendance and control exercised by school personnel creates a duty of care owed by school personnel to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injury from third parties, including by other students.

The district also argued it was immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2, as any decisions by district employees made in attempt to address the bullying were “discretionary.”[2] The court disagreed, finding immunity under section 820.2 applies to policy decisions, not lower-level decisions implementing, or failing to implement, an existing policy. The court noted the plaintiff did not argue the district and middle school employees were negligent for failing to expel the student, which is a discretionary decision, but rather that they failed to protect her from other students’ bullying, an operational act. The court explained, while a decision to expel a student is discretionary, the middle school employees’ failure to follow established district and school site procedures and guidelines, as outlined in existing district policies, for investigating alleged incidents of bullying was not an exercise of discretion that Government Code section 820.2 protects. The appellate court upheld the jury verdict and the award to plaintiff student of $1 million in damages.

Impact on California School Districts

In summary, California school districts should document student complaints or concerns of bullying and properly follow their existing student safety plans and related policies. School site administrators must also handle student complaints in a diligent and timely manner, and address such concerns under the appropriate policy or procedure.

AALRR is available to provide professional learning and training to school districts on how to address student complaints in a legally compliant manner, including how to process complaints under applicable district policies and procedures. If your school district has questions about such training or the contents of this Alert, please contact the authors of this Alert or your usual AALRR counsel.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo

[1]See C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 869; see also J.H. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 123, 139.

[2]Government Code section 820.2 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.”