Los Angeles Workplace Sexual Abuse Attorney

Under California’s AB 2777 (the SILENCE Act, codified at CCP §340.1), adult survivors of sexual assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009 may revive previously time-barred civil claims against institutions — including San Francisco colleges and universities — through December 31, 2026. This deadline was extended from the original 2023 cutoff by SB 1299 (2023). Survivors who have not yet filed must act before this window permanently closes, as no further extensions are currently authorized under California law.

Yes. Both public institutions like San Francisco State University (part of the CSU system) and private institutions like the University of San Francisco can be sued for campus sexual abuse under CCP §340.1 and California negligence law. Public institutions such as SFSU are subject to the California Government Claims Act, which requires filing a government tort claim within six months of the incident — or the discovery of institutional negligence — before initiating a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court. Private institutions have no such pre-suit claim requirement, making the procedural path to court more direct.

AB 218, signed in 2019 and codified under California Code of Civil Procedure §340.1, extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse — abuse occurring before age 18 — to age 40 or five years from the date the survivor discovers the psychological injury caused by the abuse, whichever is later. AB 218 also opened a three-year institutional revival window from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022 for previously expired childhood claims. San Francisco campus survivors abused as minors — including students in dual enrollment programs or summer courses at SFSU, UCSF, or City College of San Francisco — may still fall within the extended limitations period if they have not yet reached age 40.

Liability in San Francisco campus sexual abuse cases can extend beyond the individual perpetrator to the institution itself — including the Board of Trustees of the California State University (for SFSU), the Regents of the University of California (for UCSF), or the governing boards of private institutions like the University of San Francisco and Golden Gate University. Under California law, institutions may be held liable for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, failure to report under the Clery Act, and deliberate indifference to known sexual misconduct. In some cases, third-party student housing operators, Greek-letter organizations, or affiliated nonprofit entities may also be named as defendants in San Francisco Superior Court.

California law allows campus sexual abuse survivors to recover both economic and non-economic damages in civil litigation filed in San Francisco Superior Court. Economic damages include past and future medical expenses, therapy costs, lost earnings, and educational disruption losses — courts have recognized substantial damages for derailed academic and professional trajectories. Non-economic damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life are uncapped in California sexual abuse cases, and punitive damages may be available where the institution acted with fraud, oppression, or malice — such as concealing a known predatory employee from students or accreditation authorities.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination — including sexual harassment and assault — at any educational institution receiving federal funding, which includes SFSU, UCSF, City College of San Francisco, and most private San Francisco universities. A Title IX administrative complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights must be submitted within 180 days of the last discriminatory act, but filing administratively does not toll or replace California’s civil statute of limitations under CCP §340.1. California civil lawsuits under state negligence law and AB 2777 are separate proceedings and typically provide more powerful remedies — including uncapped non-economic damages — than federal Title IX administrative channels.

Yes. A California civil lawsuit for campus sexual abuse is entirely independent of any criminal prosecution, and the burden of proof in civil court is the lower ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard rather than the criminal ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard. The San Francisco District Attorney’s decision not to prosecute, a criminal acquittal, or the expiration of criminal statutes of limitations have no bearing on your right to pursue civil claims under CCP §340.1. Many survivors have obtained substantial civil judgments against both individual perpetrators and San Francisco institutions even when no criminal charges were filed.

Yes. The AB 2777 revival window under CCP §340.1 applies to adult sexual assault claims against both the individual perpetrator and any institution whose negligent or wrongful conduct was a legal cause of the abuse — expressly including professors, coaches, teaching assistants, resident advisors, and administrative staff at San Francisco colleges and universities. To qualify, the assault must have occurred on or after January 1, 2009, and the perpetrator must have been an adult at the time. Institutional liability may attach where officials had prior notice of the perpetrator’s conduct, failed to implement adequate reporting policies under Title IX, or violated the Clery Act’s mandatory disclosure requirements.

AB 218 (CCP §340.1) governs childhood sexual abuse claims — abuse that occurred when the survivor was under 18 years old — extending the limitations period to age 40 or five years from discovery, with an institutional revival window that closed December 31, 2022. AB 2777 (the SILENCE Act, also codified at CCP §340.1) governs adult sexual assault claims — where the survivor was 18 or older at the time — and creates a revival window through December 31, 2026 for conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2009. San Francisco campus survivors must identify which statute applies based on their age at the time of the abuse, as the applicable deadlines and eligibility requirements differ significantly.

Before filing a civil lawsuit against a public California university — such as San Francisco State University (CSU system) or City College of San Francisco (San Francisco Community College District) — survivors must first file a government tort claim with the relevant public entity under the California Government Claims Act (Government Code §905 et seq.). Under Government Code §945.6, a civil lawsuit must generally be filed within six months of the rejection of the tort claim. Survivors should consult a sexual abuse attorney immediately given the interaction between the Government Claims Act requirements and the AB 2777 revival window deadline of December 31, 2026, as completing both the pre-claim process and case preparation typically requires six to twelve months.

The Clery Act (20 U.S.C. §1092(f)) requires colleges and universities receiving federal Title IV funding to disclose annual campus crime statistics and maintain transparent security policies — obligations applicable to SFSU, UCSF, USF, and City College of San Francisco. Violations of the Clery Act, including failure to report known sexual assaults, failure to issue timely emergency warnings, or deliberate misclassification of incidents, can be introduced as evidence of institutional negligence in California civil litigation. Clery Act annual security reports are public records, and discrepancies between reported statistics and internal incident records have been used effectively in San Francisco Superior Court to establish that institutions had constructive notice of systemic abuse.

Most California campus sexual abuse lawsuits are filed in San Francisco Superior Court under state law claims — including negligence, negligent supervision, and CCP §340.1 — which typically provide broader remedies than federal causes of action alone. Federal court is an option where Title IX claims are brought directly against the institution, but Title IX requires proof of the institution’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to known sexual harassment — a significantly higher threshold than California’s negligence standard. Attorneys handling San Francisco campus sexual abuse cases generally prefer California state court because it offers uncapped non-economic damages, punitive damages, and access to the favorable AB 2777 revival provisions unavailable under federal law.

Building a negligence case against a San Francisco university requires documenting the institution’s prior notice of the perpetrator’s conduct — through Title IX complaint records, prior victim reports, employee personnel files, campus police reports, and Clery Act disclosures — and establishing the causal link between institutional failure and the survivor’s harm. Attorneys issue pre-litigation litigation holds and serve California Public Records Act requests to preserve institutional records before statutory retention periods expire. Given the December 31, 2026 deadline under AB 2777, survivors should retain counsel immediately, as investigation, government tort claim preparation (where required for public institutions), and case development typically require six to twelve months before a complaint can be filed in San Francisco Superior Court.

Yes. California Penal Code §11165.7 designates certain university employees — including teachers, coaches, counselors, athletic trainers, and administrators at San Francisco colleges — as mandated reporters of known or suspected child abuse and neglect. For adult survivors, California Penal Code §11160 requires healthcare providers and others to report injuries resulting from assaults to law enforcement. Failure by university employees to report known sexual abuse as required by California law can constitute evidence of negligence per se in a civil lawsuit under CCP §340.1, significantly strengthening institutional liability claims where mandatory reporters remained silent despite knowledge of ongoing abuse.

Survivors should consult a California campus sexual abuse attorney as soon as possible to determine eligibility under AB 2777 (adult claims, CCP §340.1, deadline December 31, 2026) or AB 218 (childhood claims), since identifying the applicable revival window and satisfying any government tort claim prerequisites must occur before a lawsuit can be filed. Preserve all written communications with the institution, retain copies of any reports made to campus Title IX coordinators, campus police, or Dean of Students offices, and document medical or counseling records. For claims against public San Francisco institutions — SFSU, UCSF, or City College of San Francisco — early attorney involvement is especially critical because government tort claims must be filed and resolved before suit can be initiated in San Francisco Superior Court.