October 2025: 

The MLO Minute: “Sexual Assault in School: The Courts Speak Again” — 

By Dennis McAndrews, Esq., Michael Connolly, Esq., and Daniel Woody, Esq. — 

In one of the most disturbing developments in public and private education, sexual assaults in schools and at school events have become an increasing and tragic development. As one response to this issue, the Pennsylvania legislature in 2019 amended Pennsylvania’s sovereign immunity statute to permit actions against public schools (and other municipalities) where the negligence of the school district (or municipality) was the proximate cause of a sexual assault upon a student or employee. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(9). Notably, private schools do not have sovereign immunity.

One legal issue that has remained unresolved under this 2019 provision is whether school districts, public charter schools, and municipalities are only liable where its own employee is the assailant, or also whether student-on-student assaults are actionable where the school (or municipality) has been negligent in supervising the students or other individuals involved. This situation is particularly prevalent where the assailant has a history of serious behavior issues, including inappropriate sexual behaviors, or where the victim requires supervision due to a lack of self-advocacy skills or has related needs making them more vulnerable to abuse.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently answered this question in L.F.V. v. South Philadelphia High School, 340 A.3d 395 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025). In that case, the Philadelphia School District “contend[ed] that it is immune from the acts of third parties . . . and only loses its immunity when a District employee commits sexual abuse.” L.F.V., 340 A.3d at 401. The Commonwealth Court expressly rejected that argument and held that under the sexual abuse exception to sovereign immunity, a public school (or a charter school or municipality) can be liable where its failure to act enabled the sexual abuse to occur—particularly a failure to properly supervise. Id. at 411. The Commonwealth Court explained that the legislative intent in creating this exception to sovereign immunity “was to hold municipalities–like the District–accountable for negligently enabling sexual abuse.” Id. (emphasis supplied by the Commonwealth Court).

Consequently, under the current state of the law, where, as in the L.F.V. case, it is alleged that improper supervision by a school district enabled sexual abuse by one student upon another, a student and their parents can bring a cause of action against the school district.

Our firm has handled a great many abuse cases over our four decades of representation of children and families. If such abuse has occurred, we remain prepared to assist your family in seeking a just resolution.