In 2019, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law giving alleged victims of past sexual abuse two years to take their cases to court, now defendants, like the Alamance-Burlington School System, say that window should never have been opened.
In 2000, a 16-year-old Graham High School student got a ride home from his English and a Second Language teacher – nearly 22 years later, he claims that teacher took advantage of the situation to sexually assault him.
Please support local journalism as a Times-News subscriber
That student was one of many who filed suit in the two-year window provided by the SAFE (Sexual Assault Fast reporting and Enforcement) Child Act to sue that teacher and the school district that hired him. In North Carolina, there is a three-year statute of limitations on bringing lawsuits like this one, but the SAFE Act, among other things, allowed alleged victims who missed that time limit to sue in 2020 and 2021.
A three-judge panel in Wake County hearing a suit against the Gaston County Board of Education and another against the Piney Grove Fire Department in Forsyth County agreed that violated the state constitution. Until the Supreme Court of North Carolina weighs in on that, this case, and others like it around the state, are on hold.
The suit against ABSS and that teacher was filed on Dec. 29, 2021, demanding financial compensation for medical bills, ongoing emotional distress and reduced earning capacity brought on by a trauma that “has impacted every aspect of Plaintiff’s life.”
The school board is liable, according to the suit, for failing to properly supervise the teacher or training him “regarding appropriate interactions with children” and “failed to intervene when there was clear and convincing evidence of the inappropriate relationship between Defendant (teacher) and young students who participated in the English as a Second Language academic classes at Graham High School.”
The district argues North Carolina courts have already said the legislature cannot “revive” the right to sue once the statute of limitations has barred it. It also claims the wording of the SAFE Act – “any civil action for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred” – is so vague and open to different interpretations that alone makes it unconstitutional.
If the supreme court finds the SAFE Child Act constitutional, the district argues the law does not apply to negligence claims like the one against ABSS, does not revive claims against corporate entities like the board of education and the alleged abuse of the student “are committed outside the scope of the alleged perpetrator’s duties” so the board is not libel for them, and the plaintiff has not claimed the school board knew anything about abuse against him.
The teacher has not been a part of this suit so far, according to court filings, with no lawyer appearing in court for him, it is not clear if he will represent himself. Neither the plaintiff nor the school board have sought his opinion in this case so far.
