Holding that although a hospital technician's sexual assault of a patient was enabled by his employment, the tort was not foreseeable and did not arise out of emotions engendered by the job
Holding that the County could not be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment by a deputy sheriff who worked at jail, even though harassment occurred during work hours at the jail, because the misconduct was "motivated for strictly personal reasons unrelated to the guarding of inmates or the performance of any other duty"
Holding that individual instances of sexual harassment of students by teachers does not impute liability to the school districts under the doctrine of respondeat superior
Holding "public entities have no affirmative duty to warn of the release of an inmate with a violent history unless the inmate makes a specific threat against a specific, identifiable victim or group of victims"
Holding that a school district had a duty to a student who was injured by a motorcycle off campus where the school failed to supervise the student and he wandered off
In Stamps, the Court noted that the Brown case also incorrectly treated section 51.9 as an Unruh Civil Rights claim, Stamps, 136 Cal. App. 4th at 1450.
Holding that, where intentional discrimination is shown, schools can be held liable for monetary damages under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., for failing to eradicate hostile environment caused by peer sexual harassment
Holding there is no cause of action for damages under article I, section 1, because that provision does not impose a mandatory duty on public entities to protect a citizen's right to privacy