A Marin County high school district must pay all $10 million of a jury's verdict to a man who asserts he was sexually molested by his high school tennis coach, a state appeals panel has ruled.
However, a dissenting justice on the court has taken the unusual step of asking the state high court to review the decision, saying he believed state law should not allow the abuser to escape financial liability for his alleged crimes, while leaving taxpayers holding the full bill, even if school officials could have prevented the abuse.
On Sept. 24, a three-justice panel of the California First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled 2-1 to uphold the verdict rendered by a Marin County jury against the Tamalpais Union High School District.
California First District Appellate Justice James Richman
| Ballotpedia
The verdict came in the lawsuit brought by a man identified in court documents only as A.H., stemming from sexual abuse allegedly committed by former Tamalpais High School tennis coach Normandie Burgos.
According to court documents, A.H. was a student at Tamalpais High School in Mill Valley from 2000-2004.
Burgos had worked at the school as a full-time physical education teacher and tennis coach, beginning in 1998.
According to court documents, Burgos had begun coaching A.H. while the student was still in middle school. In court documents, A.H. reportedly considered Burgos a "mentor" who was "'the most important person in his life' other than his parents."
According to court documents, Burgos allegedly began abusing A.H. in 2003, in his office and in the coaches' locker room. However, Burgos asserted he had been groomed by Burgos for years, before Burgos advanced to the sexual abuse and sexual assault stage, which involved at least touching the student's genitals during "massage" and "stretching" sessions.
A.H. filed suit in 2020 against the school district, accusing school officials of failing to prevent the abuse. According to court documents, school officials were alerted in 2002 by a Mill Valley police detective who said she had received a report from a therapist, who said a wrestler at the school had told her Burgos had reached down the front of his pants and brushed his genitals, allegedly while taking "a measurement of his upper thigh."
According to court documents, the district questioned Burgos about the police report, but only issued an "incident report/letter of warning" in December 2002. That report purportedly described Burgos' conduct as "careless, highly inappropriate, and unjustifiable" resulting in "a hostile learning environment." The incident report further directed Burgos to not carry out such "body fat measurements" again.
However, the incident report was not placed in Burgos' staff file, as a school official said the school believed it to be "an isolated incident."
The incident reportedly did not result in increased supervision of Burgos with his students.
In court, however, A.H.'s attorneys presented evidence that Burgos allegedly had molested other students.
According to court documents, the school received a second formal complaint about Burgos in 2005, again pertaining to "body fat measurements" that made a student uncomfortable.
That complaint purportedly resulted in a "notice of unprofessional conduct and improvement plan," which again directed Burgos to stop taking "body fat measurements on students" and to stop providing students with "physical therapy or assistance with stretching."
Burgos was ultimately criminally convicted in 2019 and sentenced to 255 years in prison.
At trial, A.H.'s attorneys asked jurors to award $19.3 million. They asked the jury to require the school district to pay 90% of that sum.
The jury, however, returned a verdict of $10 million, 100% of which would be paid by the school district.
The school appealed the verdict, arguing faulty jury instructions provided by a Marin County Superior Court judge had led to the "legally impossible" verdict. The school district further argued A.H. and his attorneys should not have been allowed to tell juros about the allegations of past abuse against Burgos, as well as Burgos' criminal conviction.
They said these errors should have resulted in a new trial, at least.
On appeal, however, a majority of the First District appellate panel rejected the school district's arguments, and said the verdict and its 100% apportionment against the school district should stand.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Marla J. Miller. Justice Therese M. Stewart concurred.
Justice James A. Richman, however, dissented from the majority opinion.
In dissent, Richman said he agreed the school district should owe A.H. money for the abuse he suffered.
However, Richman agreed with the school district that the verdict - in which Burgos is apportioned none of the liability for the abuse he allegedly committed - should be considered "legally impossible."
Richman noted the school district sought to overturn the verdict, not the apportionment of liability. But in this instance, Richman said the appellate court should have taken it upon itself to undo the apparent error.
Since his colleagues would not, Richman urged the state Supreme Court to take the case on appeal, even if the school district chooses not to appeal.
"... If what I believe should occur would occur, the District's liability would remain, as would A.H.'s $10 million verdict," Richman wrote. "The only issue that would be determined on remand is what percentage of that $10 million the District would be responsible for.
"... It could be more than Burgos. Maybe less. But whatever it is, it cannot be 100 percent."
Tamalpais Union High School District has been represented in the case by attorneys Marina B. Pitts and Seth L. Gordon, of the firm of Leone Alberts & Duus, of Concord.
A.H. has been represented by attorneys B. Robert Allard and Mark J. Boskovich, of Corsigilia McMahon & Allard, of San Jose ; and Jon R. Williams, of Williams Iagmin, of San Diego.