The Visalia Unified School District\u2019s public board meeting in March was a festive and upbeat affair with a performance by a student chamber music group and a commendation for a high school cheer squad.<\/p>\n
When the seven-member board went into closed session, the agenda was decidedly grimmer: Six former students were suing the district over sexual abuse they said they suffered decades earlier at the hands of a kindergarten teacher.<\/p>\n
Out of public view, the board unanimously approved a $3-million settlement with provisions intended to keep the community in the dark forever. <\/p>\n
Under the terms of the agreement, the women, their lawyers and families were prohibited from disclosing any aspect of the deal, including the amount they were paid.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Parties agree that they will respond to any inquiries they may receive from any third parties regarding the lawsuit by stating only that \u2018the matter has been resolved\u2019 without any further elaboration, discussion or disclosure,\u201d the settlement instructed.<\/p>\n
It was Visalia\u2019s fifth secret settlement in the last three years, one of a flurry that districts are quietly approving statewide.<\/p>\n
A Times investigation found that California\u2019s public schools, faced with a historic surge of sex abuse lawsuits, are increasingly using nondisclosure agreements and other tactics that celebrities and big corporations rely upon to protect their reputation. <\/p>\n
At least 25 districts have resolved suits or other claims in ways that hinder taxpayers from learning about the allegations, the cost of settling them or both, The Times found. These hidden settlements total more than $53 million. Legal experts say that these settlements may be in violation of state law, and that some should be investigated by the state attorney general. <\/p>\n
While shielding the names and identifying details of sex abuse victims is widely accepted, courts have repeatedly said the public has a right to know allegations leveled against government employees and the money spent to compensate accusers. <\/p>\n
Lawmakers in California have also largely banned the use of confidentiality provisions for settlements involving sexual assault and harassment, on the belief that transparency helps victims heal and leads to public accountability.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s very significant problems with government agencies acting like private companies and requesting or insisting on these kinds of nondisclosure or non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements,\u201d said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, based in San Rafael. \u201cBecause at the end of the day, the government works for the people and the people have a very compelling interest in knowing about claims and allegations of misconduct.\u201d<\/p>\n
California\u2019s school districts are now grappling with a deluge of sex abuse cases resulting from a 2019 law that changed the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse and created a new window \u2014 from 2020 to 2022 \u2014 in which anyone could file a lawsuit for past alleged abuse.<\/p>\n
The Times identified more than 1,000 lawsuits against school districts filed since 2020, with more than 750 filed due to the new law. Some lawsuits allege abuse as far back as the 1950s. Most cases are still making their way through the courts, but more than 330 have settled for roughly $700 million, with $435 million paid out for claims related to the new law. The state projects that local education agencies will ultimately pay out between $2 billion and $3 billion once cases work through the court system. Much of this is taking place outside the public eye.<\/p>\n
Sex abuse cases against California school districts<\/p>\n
The Times reached out to more than 930 school districts in California and submitted public records requests seeking information about all sexual misconduct suits and claims filed against districts and copies of settlement agreements for all sexual misconduct suits since Jan. 1, 2020. Click on the expand icon to see details for settled cases including court documents and settlement agreements.<\/p>\n
Case information is up to date as of March 1, 2025, although some cases may have since settled and are not reflected. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District refused to turn over any records. Los Angeles Unified only provided a list of AB218 cases as of June 2024, and settlements executed through January 2025.
See something missing or incorrect? Contact matt.hamilton@latimes.com.<\/p>\n
Gabrielle LaMarr LeMeeLOS ANGELES TIMES<\/p>\n
In Visalia, confidentiality clauses negotiated by district lawyers acknowledged the public\u2019s right to obtain the information \u2014 and then attempted to make sure they never would. Four agreements specifically barred former students receiving secret payouts from \u201cdirectly or indirectly\u201d encouraging others to file a request under the state Public Records Act \u2014 the method The Times used to review copies of agreements referenced in this story.<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for Visalia Unified declined an interview request, and the school district did not answer written questions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Anaheim Union High School District paid three men, who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher, $3.3 million in 2023.<\/p>\n
(Robert Gauthier \/ Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n
Several districts attempted to prevent allegations from becoming public by paying off accusers before they filed lawsuits that would have detailed the claims of sex abuse for anyone to see.<\/p>\n
Anaheim Union High School District paid a trio of men who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher $3.3 million in 2023 after their attorney sent the district a draft of a lawsuit he said he was prepared to file in Superior Court.<\/p>\n
The terms of the payout two years ago required that the men and their lawyers \u201cnot seek publicity relating to the facts and circumstances giving rise\u201d to their claims, and indeed, the settlements have not been previously reported.<\/p>\n
John Bautista, a spokesperson for Anaheim Union, said in a statement that the district and its insurer settled the draft lawsuits after going through discovery in a related case and \u201cdid not want to incur additional expenses of filing a lawsuit.\u201d <\/p>\n
\u201cNothing in the agreement would prevent the claimant\/plaintiff from speaking with the press concerning the facts of the case if the press contacted [them],\u201d Bautista said.<\/p>\n
At least one district paid an accuser before anything was put in writing, records show. Victor Elementary School District in the High Desert negotiated a $350,000 settlement with one former student after his lawyer relayed abuse allegations in a phone call. Asked by The Times for a document describing the claimed misconduct, a district official said no such records existed.<\/p>\n
Some districts suggest the confidentiality restrictions are needed to avoid a \u201csnowball effect\u201d of further litigation.<\/p>\n
San Diego Unified, hit by more than a dozen lawsuits over alleged sex abuse since 2020, has settled four for a total of $2.44 million, each with a confidentiality clause that, at a minimum, prevents the accuser or her lawyer from disclosing the settlement amount. One of the settlements blocks the accuser from discussing the matter with anyone except her lawyer or financial advisor or in response to a subpoena.<\/p>\n
San Diego officials acknowledged that confidentiality is ultimately limited \u2014 the documents can be disclosed via public records requests \u2014 but the district proceeded with pursuing restrictions on the accusers and their representatives.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe purpose is to keep plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers from using these settlements as marketing tools,\u201d said James Canning, a spokesman for San Diego Unified.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Former state Sen. Connie Leyva, seen here while in the Legislature in 2019, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions. \u201cThat sounds illegal,\u201d Leyva said.<\/p>\n
(Rich Pedroncelli \/ Associated Press)<\/p>\n
Efforts to curb the use of secret settlements gained momentum in the 1980s, with growing public awareness of how confidentiality agreements had kept the public in the dark about environmental or health hazards, such as asbestos.<\/p>\n
In 2016, California prohibited settlement agreements that block the disclosure of factual information about sexual abuse or any sex offense that could be prosecuted as a felony.<\/p>\n
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, lawmakers in 2018 passed the STAND Act, which prohibits nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, discrimination and other sexual assault cases that don\u2019t rise to felony prosecution. Three years later, the Silenced No More Act widened the prohibition on nondisclosure agreements to include any harassment case. The law still gives victims the option to protect their identity.<\/p>\n
The lead sponsor of both bills, former state Sen. Connie Leyva, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds illegal,\u201d said Leyva, now the executive director of public radio and TV station KVCR. \u201cWe did not speak specifically about children or about schools, but it shouldn\u2019t be happening.\u201d She added, \u201cOur bill was meant to apply to everyone everywhere.\u201d<\/p>\n
Several settlement agreements obtained by The Times included caveats by stating they were \u201cconfidential to the extent allowed by law,\u201d or contained similar carve-outs. Experts said such provisos still have the effect of muzzling a victim\u2019s speech and hindering public accountability.<\/p>\n