Though Not as Liable as Perpetrator, District Still Found 40 Percent At Fault for Coach’s Abuse

It seems nearly impossible these days to read a newspaper or website without coming across a new story of young athletes being sexually abused by their coaches, trainers or team doctors.

In March, Kylie McKenzie was awarded $9 million in damages after a jury in federal court in Florida found that the U.S. Tennis Association failed to protect her from one of her coaches, Anibal Aranda, at one of its training centers when McKenzie was a teenager.

While the perpetrator of abuse is usually convicted of a crime and punished by the state, the purpose of this Legal Action column is to examine what duty the employing institution or organization — the USTA in the McKenzie situation — has in such cases of sexual misconduct by employees. A good example of the potential cost of ignoring abuse warning signs is Doe v. Coronado Unified School District, Case No: 37-2021-00006011-CU-PO-CT (2024). 

Rumor reported

Jordan Tyler Bucklew began working for the Coronado (Calif.) Unified School District as a volunteer assistant girls’ basketball coach. After a few years, he was hired as a paid assistant. In addition to coaching the school’s basketball team, Bucklew also ran his own business as a personal trainer and private coach for young athletes. In 2020, after receiving a report of “an inappropriate relationship” between Bucklew and Jane Doe, a 17-year-old student on the basketball team who also received private coaching, Bucklew was arrested by the Coronado police. 

Bucklew eventually pleaded guilty to a felony of unlawful sex with a minor and was ordered to serve one year in custody, which he served in San Deigo County’s electronic monitoring program. In addition, Bucklew was given three years of probation and prohibited from having any association or contact with minors. However, even though Doe’s parents had urged the judge to impose lifetime sex offender registration, San Diego Superior Court Judge Michael Popkins declined to require Bucklew to register as a sex offender.

After the criminal trial, Doe and her parents filed a civil suit against the Coronado Unified School District and Bucklew. In her suit, Doe claimed that Bucklew was liable for sexual battery and assault and that the school district was negligent in the supervision and employment of Bucklew. In support of her lawsuit, Doe argued that the school district missed several warning signs concerning Bucklew and failed to follow its own code of conduct policies prohibiting coaches from being alone with children. If they had followed school policies, Doe argued, the school district would have identified that Bucklew was not fit to be around minors. In support of this argument, Doe presented evidence that head basketball coach, Toler Goodwin, during an out-of-town team trip, permitted Bucklew to take Doe to a bar to watch an NBA game. Doe also argued that as a coach, Bucklew was in a position of authority, which he took advantage of to groom Doe.

In its defense, the Coronado Unified School District argued that it had no way of knowing Bucklew would engage in such behavior and that, once discovered, the district complied with all legal requirements by immediately reporting the rumor to the police, interviewing Doe and her teammates, and placing Bucklew on leave.

Adjusted allocation of liability

After a trial, the jury found Bucklew posed a risk of sexual misconduct toward students and that the Coronado Unified School District’s negligence in hiring, retaining or supervising Bucklew was a substantial actor in causing Doe’s harm. As a result, the jury awarded Doe $2.5 million in past non-economic damages and $2.5 million in future non-economic damages, for a total of $5 million. In assigning fault, the jury apportioned 10 percent of the responsibility to Bucklew and 90 percent to the Coronado Unified School District, which consequently was liable for $4.5 million of the total damages.

The school district challenged the jury’s verdict and filed a motion to overturn it. In support of its petition, the school district raised three points. First, it argued that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding that the school district knew or should have known Bucklew posed a risk of sexual misconduct toward students. Second, it argued that the damages were excessive. Third, it argued that the jury improperly allocated fault between the school district and Bucklew.

In ruling that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that the school district knew or should have known Bucklew posed a risk of sexual misconduct toward students, the court noted that not only had Doe presented evidence that head coach Goodwin permitted Bucklew to take Doe to a bar to watch a Lakers game during the team trip to Los Angeles, but the jury also heard testimony of a previous member of the basketball team regarding Bucklew’s conduct toward her.

As for whether the damages were excessive, the court noted that there was substantial evidence in the record for the jury to have awarded $5 million in non-economic damages. The court noted that because of Bucklew’s misconduct, Doe suffered serious emotional injuries, requiring Doe to undergo years of therapy, and that she suffers from chronic PTSD and major depressive disorder. Accordingly, the court found that the jury could reasonably have found such damages, and they were therefore not excessive.

The court next examined whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the jury’s allocation of fault between Bucklew and the school district. In modifying the jury’s allocation, the court held that while a school district may be liable for its own negligence in supervising and hiring a teacher who sexually abuses a student, it cannot be held vicariously liable for the teacher’s act of sexual misconduct. Therefore, the court held that when negligence by an administrator or supervisor is established, the greater share of fault will ordinarily lie more with the individual who intentionally abused or harassed the student than with any other party, and that fact should be reflected in any allocation of comparative fault.

In the current case, the court held that the evidence demonstrated that Bucklew engaged in, and pleaded guilty to, criminal conduct and that he used his position of trust and authority, as well as his popularity with students and staff, to engage in his predatory acts. In contrast, the court found no evidence of any criminal conduct by the school district staff or supervisors. Therefore, the court concluded, while the school district can be held liable for its negligent acts, it cannot be held liable for Bucklew’s criminal acts of sexual misconduct. Accordingly, the court modified the allocation of harm and ruled that Bucklew was 60 percent at fault, and the Coronado Unified School District was 40 percent at fault, or liable for $2 million in damages.

Duty to protect

What can athletics and school administrators learn from Doe v. Coronado Unified School District?

First, administrators should note that the jury sent a clear message that school districts must not only put policies in place that protect minors from sexual abuse, but they must then follow those policies. By allowing exceptions to the policies, the jury found the school district negligent in failing to protect Doe from Bucklew, even though the school policies prohibited coaches from being alone with children.

Second, administrators should note that juries are going to hold athletics and school officials to a higher standard when children are involved. Therefore, it is essential that athletics administrators keep an eye on coaches and their behavior. This is especially important when dealing with assistant or volunteer coaches who are not teaching on school grounds, and especially if they provide private coaching sessions. Since they are outside the school system, these coaches have more freedom to interact with minors outside the control of the schools.

Finally, even though the court modified the jury’s allocation of harm and only found the Coronado Unified School District 40 percent at fault, or liable for $2 million, instead of the original 90 percent at-fault finding and $4.5 million liability, the jury did conclude that the school district had a duty to protect Doe and that it had failed to protect her from Jordan Bucklew. Therefore, even though the school district acted appropriately once it suspected Bucklew’s criminal behavior, its actions after the abuse of Doe did not offset the fact it failed to protect Doe from a sexually abusive coach in the first place.