Liability for School Districts for Sexual Misconduct in Texas

New Texas Laws: School Liability for Sexual Abuse in Public Schools and Mandatory Reporting for Public and Private Schools

During the 89th Texas Legislature, lawmakers passed the most significant reform of school accountability for sexual abuse in more than 50 years. Two landmark bills—House Bill 4623 (HB 4623) and Senate Bill 571 (SB 571)—both effective September 1, 2025, create a comprehensive accountability system that distinguishes between public and private schools while ensuring all students are protected from abuse.

HB 4623 applies only to public schools: Under Chapter 118 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a public school district found grossly negligent in hiring, supervising, or employing a professional school employee who commits sexual abuse against a student, or fails to report abuse or neglect, is liable for damages up to $500,000 per act or omission for each claimant, plus attorney fees and court costs. This marks the most significant waiver of sovereign immunity for Texas public schools since 1969.

SB 571 applies to all schools—both public and private: The mandatory reporting requirements, criminal penalties for concealment, pre-employment screening mandates, and parent notification obligations established by SB 571 apply to every school in Texas, regardless of whether it is publicly or privately funded. All school employees—whether they work at public ISDs, charter schools, private schools, or religious schools—must report suspected abuse to DFPS or external law enforcement within 24 hours.

For decades, waivers of governmental immunity for Texas public schools have generally been limited to liability arising out of the use or operation of motor vehicles under the Texas Tort Claims Act and cases involving excessive discipline under the Education Code. The creation of Chapter 118 represents a fundamental shift in immunity by permitting tort claims when there is sufficient justification, especially in cases involving sexual abuse and professional misconduct.

Together, these reforms create a comprehensive system: SB 571 defines universal duties and establishes swift reporting requirements that apply to all Texas schools, while HB 4623 provides financial accountability specifically for public schools when those duties are breached.

Understanding Sovereign Immunity and Why These Reforms Matter

Sovereign immunity is a legal principle rooted in the idea that the government cannot be sued without its consent. In Texas, this doctrine has historically protected public entities—including school districts, cities, and state agencies—from most lawsuits. The rationale is that protecting public funds from litigation serves the greater good by preserving taxpayer dollars for public services.

However, this protection often came at a steep cost for victims of abuse. Even when a teacher, coach, or administrator sexually abused a student, the school district that employed them, failed to supervise them, or ignored warning signs could not be held financially accountable. Victims were left with limited options: they could pursue criminal charges against the individual perpetrator or attempt to sue the employee personally, but collecting damages from an individual is often far more difficult than recovering from an institution with insurance and assets.

The coordinated reforms of HB 4623 and SB 571 represent a deliberate policy choice by the Texas Legislature to prioritize victim compensation and institutional accountability over the traditional protections afforded to governmental entities. By creating both civil liability and criminal consequences for failures to protect students, these laws send a clear message: protecting children takes precedence over protecting public coffers and institutional reputations.

How the Two Bills Work Together: A Comprehensive Accountability System

Understanding how HB 4623 and SB 571 complement each other is essential to grasping the scope of these reforms:

SB 571 establishes duties and timelines:

• 24-hour mandatory reporting to DFPS or external law enforcement
• 48-hour administrative reporting chain (principal to superintendent to TEA/SBEC)
• Expanded definition of abuse including educator-student relationships under Texas Penal Code § 21.12
• Pre-employment screening and Do Not Hire Registry checks
• Parent notification requirements when misconduct allegations arise
• Criminal penalties (state jail felony) for superintendents who intentionally conceal misconduct
• Criminal penalties (Class B misdemeanor) for applicants who provide false information on pre-employment affidavits

HB 4623 provides civil remedies and financial accountability:

• Waives sovereign immunity so victims can sue school districts directly
• Abolishes official immunity for professional school employees involved in abuse or reporting failures
• Creates liability for both the abusive conduct itself and failures to report suspected abuse
• Allows recovery of actual damages up to $500,000 per act or omission for each claimant, plus attorney fees and court costs
• Provides a 30-year statute of limitations for sexual abuse claims
• Requires naming both the individual employee and school district as defendants

The integration in practice: When a school employee commits sexual abuse or fails to report suspected abuse, SB 571’s reporting requirements create clear legal duties with specific deadlines. Violations of these duties—such as failing to report to external law enforcement within 24 hours or a superintendent failing to report to TEA/SBEC within 48 hours—become evidence of gross negligence in HB 4623 civil lawsuits. The violation of SB 571’s clear mandates strengthens the victim’s case for damages under HB 4623.

For example, if a teacher observes abuse and fails to report to DFPS within 24 hours as required by SB 571, and that failure allows abuse to continue, the victim can sue under HB 4623 for actual damages resulting from the reporting failure. Meanwhile, if a superintendent intentionally concealed the incident, they face both criminal prosecution under SB 571 (state jail felony) and personal civil liability under HB 4623 (as official immunity is abolished for these cases).

Who Can Be Held Liable Under HB 4623?

One of the most significant aspects of HB 4623 is its dual liability structure. The law requires that lawsuits name both the school district and the individual employee as defendants, creating joint and several liability.

Individual Professional School Employees

The law abolishes official immunity for “professional school employees” in cases involving sexual misconduct or failure to report abuse or neglect. This is critically important because official immunity previously shielded government employees from personal liability for discretionary acts performed within the scope of their employment.

HB 4623 defines “professional school employees” broadly to include:

• Teachers and instructors
• School administrators (principals, assistant principals, superintendents)
• Counselors and social workers
• School nurses
• Bus drivers
• Any other employee who holds professional certification and exercises discretion in their duties

This expansive definition recognizes that many school employees beyond classroom teachers have significant contact with students and positions of trust and authority. A coach who abuses a student athlete, a bus driver who assaults a child on their route, or an administrator who deliberately ignores reports of abuse can all be held personally liable under HB 4623.

The School District Itself

By waiving sovereign immunity, HB 4623 allows victims to sue the school district directly. This is transformative because school districts typically carry liability insurance and have far greater financial resources than individual employees. Victims can now seek compensation from the institution that employed, supervised (or failed to supervise), and entrusted the abuser with access to children.

The requirement to name both the employee and the school as defendants ensures that victims can pursue recovery from both sources, while also preventing schools from escaping liability by arguing the employee acted outside the scope of employment.

What Conduct Triggers Liability and Mandatory Reporting?

The reforms create accountability for two distinct but related categories of wrongdoing, with different legal consequences under each bill.

Sexual Misconduct Against Students

HB 4623 creates civil liability for any sexual abuse, assault, or inappropriate sexual conduct by a professional school employee against a student. The law does not define “sexual misconduct” with precision, allowing courts to interpret it broadly to encompass the full spectrum of sexual abuse and exploitation, from inappropriate touching to rape.

SB 571 strengthens this framework by expanding Texas’s definition of child abuse under Texas Family Code §§ 261.001 and 261.101 to explicitly include “sexual conduct harmful to a child’s mental, emotional, or physical welfare, including conduct that constitutes an improper relationship between an educator and a student under Texas Penal Code § 21.12.”

This expanded definition is critical because it clarifies that the inappropriate educator-student relationships prohibited by criminal law also constitute reportable child abuse. Texas Penal Code § 21.12 criminalizes sexual contact or relationships between school employees and students, regardless of the student’s age or consent. The law also maintains that abuse includes “encouraging the child to engage in sexual conduct,” capturing grooming behavior and attempts to manipulate children into sexual situations even before physical abuse occurs.

Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect

Both bills recognize that institutional failures to report suspected abuse can be just as harmful as the abuse itself, as they allow abuse to continue and deprive children of protective intervention.

Under SB 571’s amended Texas Family Code § 261.101, professionals who have reasonable cause to believe that a child has been abused must report to the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) or law enforcement within 24 hours of first having reasonable cause to believe abuse occurred. This 24-hour deadline eliminates any ambiguity about how quickly reports must be made and prevents delays that could allow abuse to continue or evidence to be lost.

Critically, SB 571 closes a potential loophole by clarifying that “law enforcement agency” does not include a police department of an educational entity. Reports must go to external law enforcement agencies independent of the school system—including the Texas Department of Public Safety, municipal police departments, county sheriff’s offices, or county constable’s offices—ensuring genuine oversight and investigation rather than allowing schools to satisfy reporting obligations through their own campus police forces.

When school employees fail to meet these reporting obligations, HB 4623 creates civil liability. Claims under this provision might arise when a teacher observes signs of abuse but fails to report it within 24 hours, when an administrator receives a disclosure from a student but takes no action, or when multiple school employees collectively ignore warning signs that should have triggered immediate reporting.

The violation of SB 571’s clear 24-hour reporting mandate becomes powerful evidence of breach of duty in civil cases brought under HB 4623.

What Damages Can Be Recovered Under HB 4623?

Understanding what victims can and cannot recover under HB 4623 is essential for evaluating the law’s practical impact.

Actual Damages: What’s Included

HB 4623 allows recovery of “actual damages,” which are designed to compensate victims for their real, proven losses. Actual damages can include:

• Medical expenses: Hospital bills, doctor visits, medications, and ongoing medical treatment related to the abuse
• Mental health treatment: Therapy, counseling, psychiatric care, and psychological treatment costs
• Lost wages or earning capacity: Compensation for income lost due to trauma, missed work, or diminished ability to work
• Pain and suffering: Non-economic damages for the physical pain and emotional anguish caused by the abuse
• Emotional distress: Compensation for anxiety, depression, PTSD, and other psychological impacts
• Loss of enjoyment of life: Damages for the victim’s diminished ability to enjoy activities and relationships
• Loss of familial relationships: Compensation when abuse damages family bonds and relationships

These damages must be proven with documentation such as medical records, billing statements, expert testimony from mental health professionals, and evidence of the abuse’s impact on the victim’s life and functioning.

The $500,000 Cap: Understanding “Per Act or Omission”

HB 4623 imposes a significant limitation: actual damages are capped at $500,000 per act or omission for each claimant. This statutory language requires careful interpretation.

What “per act or omission” means: The cap applies to each separate act of abuse or each separate omission (failure) by the school or employee. This is the language used in the statute itself and has specific legal meaning:

• Act: A separate instance of sexual abuse or misconduct
• Omission: A separate failure to report abuse or fulfill a duty

What this means in practice: If abuse occurred on multiple separate occasions, courts will need to determine whether each occasion constitutes a separate “act” with its own $500,000 cap, or whether multiple occasions constitute a single course of conduct subject to one cap. This legal question has not yet been resolved through litigation.

Similarly, if multiple school employees separately failed to report abuse (multiple “omissions”), courts may interpret each failure as a separate act or omission with its own damage limitation, though this remains to be clarified through case law.

Strategic litigation considerations: How plaintiffs plead their cases (whether framing claims around multiple acts versus a single course of conduct, or multiple omissions versus a systematic failure to report) may impact how courts apply the damage cap. This is an area where experienced legal counsel is essential.

Additional Recoverable Costs

Beyond actual damages, successful plaintiffs can also recover:

• Court costs: Filing fees and other litigation expenses
• Reasonable attorney’s fees: Compensation for legal representation, making it more feasible for attorneys to take these cases on behalf of victims who cannot afford to pay legal fees upfront

What Cannot Be Recovered: The Punitive Damages Prohibition

Perhaps the most significant limitation in HB 4623 is its explicit prohibition on exemplary damages—also known as punitive damages. These are damages designed not to compensate the victim, but to punish the defendant for particularly egregious conduct and deter similar behavior in the future.

In many personal injury cases, punitive damages can result in multi-million dollar awards when a defendant’s conduct was malicious, intentional, or demonstrated reckless disregard for others’ safety. By excluding punitive damages, HB 4623 ensures that the financial impact on school districts focuses solely on making victims whole, not on punishment or deterrence.

This limitation reflects the Legislature’s balancing act: opening the door to liability while preventing potentially catastrophic financial judgments that could devastate school district budgets and taxpayer resources.

Statute of Limitations: How Long Do Victims Have to File Claims?

Understanding the time limits for filing claims under HB 4623 is crucial for victims and their attorneys.

Sexual Abuse Claims: 30 Years

For claims involving sexual abuse or sexual misconduct, Texas law provides an extended statute of limitations. Under Section 16.0045 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, victims of sexual assault or abuse can bring civil lawsuits for personal injury within 30 years from the date the alleged conduct occurred.

This extended period recognizes the unique nature of childhood sexual abuse. Research consistently shows that many survivors do not disclose abuse until years or even decades after it occurs. Trauma, shame, fear of retaliation, and psychological coping mechanisms often prevent victims from coming forward immediately. The 30-year limitation period gives survivors time to process their trauma, achieve emotional readiness to pursue legal action, and come forward when they are prepared to do so.

For a child abused at age 10, for example, they would have until age 40 to file a civil lawsuit under HB 4623. This lengthy window is consistent with similar survivor-friendly statutes enacted in other states in recent years.

Failure to Report Claims: Likely Two Years

For claims based solely on a school employee’s failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect—without allegations of sexual misconduct—the applicable statute of limitations is less clear. HB 4623 itself does not specify a limitations period for these claims.

In the absence of a specific statutory provision, these claims likely fall under the general statute of limitations for personal injury actions in Texas, which is two years under Section 16.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This shorter period may apply unless the facts of the case trigger the 30-year exception for sexual abuse.

The two-year limitation begins to run when the claim “accrues”—typically when the victim knew or should have known of the injury and its causal connection to the defendant’s wrongdoing. For failure to report claims, determining accrual can be complex and may depend on when the victim learned that school employees failed to fulfill their mandatory reporting obligations.

Tolling and Exceptions

Texas law includes various doctrines that can pause (“toll”) the running of the statute of limitations:

• Minority tolling: For child victims, the statute of limitations may not begin to run until they reach age 18
• Delayed discovery: In some cases, the clock may not start until the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered both the injury and its cause
• Fraudulent concealment: If the defendant actively concealed wrongdoing, the limitations period may be extended

These exceptions can significantly extend the time available to file claims, particularly in cases where school districts actively covered up abuse or where victims suffered repressed memory or trauma-related barriers to disclosure.

Administrative Reporting and Oversight

Beyond the mandatory 24-hour reporting to DFPS or external law enforcement, SB 571 creates a parallel administrative reporting system designed to ensure state education agencies can investigate misconduct and take action against educators’ professional certifications.

The 48-Hour Reporting Chain

Under Texas Education Code §§ 22A.051 and 22A.052, school administrators face strict reporting deadlines when they become aware of evidence that a State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC)-certified or non-certified employee or service provider has:

• Abused or committed an unlawful act with a student or minor, including physical mistreatment or threats of violence not justified under self-defense laws, regardless of whether bodily injury resulted
• Been involved in or solicited a romantic relationship with a student or minor
• Solicited or engaged in sexual contact with a student or minor
• Engaged in inappropriate communications with a student or minor (as defined by SBEC rule)
• Failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with a student or minor (as defined by SBEC rule)

Principals must report to superintendents within 48 hours of becoming aware of such evidence. Superintendents must then report to TEA/SBEC within 48 hours of becoming aware of the misconduct. This creates a tight, 96-hour maximum timeline from initial awareness at the campus level to reporting to state licensing authorities.

Criminal Penalties for Concealment

SB 571 adds powerful enforcement to these reporting requirements. A superintendent who fails to file a required report with the intent to conceal a person’s criminal record or alleged incident of misconduct commits a state jail felony, punishable by 180 days to two years in state jail and fines up to $10,000.

This criminal liability provision directly addresses the problem of administrators who protect abusive employees or cover up misconduct to avoid scandal or litigation. While prosecutors must prove the superintendent deliberately failed to report with the purpose of hiding the misconduct (not merely negligence or oversight), this provision creates powerful incentive to err on the side of reporting.

Civil Liability for Reporting Failures

When administrators fail to meet these reporting obligations—whether the 24-hour deadline for reporting to DFPS/law enforcement or the 48-hour administrative reporting deadlines—victims can pursue civil claims under HB 4623. The failure to report becomes evidence of the school’s gross negligence in protecting students, supporting claims for actual damages up to $500,000.

This dual accountability system means that a superintendent who conceals misconduct faces both criminal prosecution under SB 571 and potential civil liability (along with the school district) under HB 4623 for any harm that results from the failure to report.

The TEA Misconduct Reporting Portal

To streamline and centralize reporting, Texas Education Code §§ 22A.103 and 22A.155 require that misconduct reports and responses to TEA subpoenas be submitted through TEA’s Misconduct Reporting Portal. This portal system creates a centralized, trackable record of misconduct reports, making it harder for information to be lost, ignored, or buried. It also facilitates TEA’s ability to identify patterns, track repeat offenders across districts, and ensure accountability in the reporting process.

Parent Notification and Transparency Requirements

Under Texas Education Code § 22A.053, school boards and governing bodies must adopt policies requiring notice to parents or guardians when an employee or service provider is alleged to have engaged in specified misconduct involving a student. The notice must disclose:

• That the alleged misconduct occurred
• Whether the person was terminated following investigation or resigned before the investigation was completed
• Whether a report was submitted to TEA or SBEC concerning the alleged misconduct

This transparency requirement empowers parents with information about incidents affecting their children and prevents schools from quietly allowing accused employees to resign and move to other districts without consequence. Parents have a right to know when their child’s safety may have been compromised, and this information helps them make informed decisions about their children’s education and safety.

h2>What to Do If You Receive a School Misconduct Notice

Under Texas law, all schools—public and private—must notify parents when an employee is alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct or abuse involving any student. If you receive such a notice, even if the school says your child wasn’t involved, take it seriously.

Focus on Your Child First

Children often don’t immediately disclose abuse. Watch for changes in behavior, mood, or attitude toward school. Have gentle, age-appropriate conversations. Consider connecting your child with a counselor who specializes in child trauma, regardless of whether you believe they were directly affected. Early intervention can make a significant difference in a child’s healing and recovery.

Understand What the Notice Doesn’t Tell You

The school is required to tell you that misconduct occurred and whether the employee was fired or resigned. But you won’t learn:

• The full scope of what happened and who was affected
• Whether the employee had prior complaints or red flags
• Whether the school properly screened them during hiring
• Whether school officials violated their 24-hour duty to report abuse to authorities
• Whether administrators tried to cover up or minimize the incident

These details matter. If the school failed to properly screen an employee, ignored warning signs, or delayed reporting to protect its reputation, that institutional failure put your child and others at risk. Understanding what really happened helps ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Time Is Critical

Evidence disappears quickly. Security footage gets deleted, emails are purged, documents go missing, and witnesses forget details. More importantly, if the school violated its reporting duties or enabled abuse through negligence, understanding that quickly helps protect other children and ensures accountability.

Why Call Varghese Summersett

Our role isn’t just about filing lawsuits—it’s about getting to the truth, protecting children, and holding institutions accountable. We can:

• Investigate what really happened and whether the school violated its mandatory reporting duties under the new laws
• Help you understand whether your child had contact with the accused employee and what warning signs to watch for
• Connect you with qualified counselors and support resources specialized in childhood trauma
• Preserve critical evidence before the school destroys it
• Hold everyone accountable—the perpetrator through criminal referrals, the school through administrative actions and civil claims if warranted
• Force systemic change so the school implements better protections and this doesn’t happen to another family

We’ve handled too many cases where parents assumed the school was managing things properly, only to discover months later that the employee had a history of complaints, the school never reported to police within 24 hours as required, or their own child had been affected but was too frightened to speak up initially.

What Happens Next

A free, confidential consultation helps you understand what occurred, what your options are, and what’s best for your child. There’s no pressure and no obligation. We simply help you see the full picture so you can make informed decisions about your child’s wellbeing and safety.

If holding the school accountable through legal action makes sense, we’ll explain how that process works and handle everything while you focus on your child. If your child needs support services, we’ll connect you with the right resources. If criminal action is warranted, we’ll ensure law enforcement has all the evidence they need.

Call Varghese Summersett today. Your child’s wellbeing comes first. We’ll help you understand what happened, ensure your child gets the support they need, and make certain the school is held accountable so this never happens again.

Prevention Through Enhanced Screening and Background Checks

SB 571 establishes comprehensive front-end prevention measures to keep dangerous individuals out of schools in the first place.

Pre-Employment Affidavits

Under Texas Education Code § 22A.055, individuals applying for employment or seeking to work as service providers must:

• Consent to the release of their employment records
• Submit a pre-employment or pre-service affidavit disclosing whether they have ever been:
  • Investigated, charged, adjudicated, or convicted by law enforcement or child protective services for conduct described in Section 22A.051
  • Investigated by a licensing authority or had a license, certificate, or permit denied, suspended, revoked, or sanctioned in any state
  • Included in the Do Not Hire Registry
  • Employed by a service provider for any public or private school
  • Terminated, discharged, or resigned in lieu of termination from any public or private school

Individuals who fail to disclose required information commit a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine. This criminal penalty prevents applicants from omitting problematic history and helps schools identify potentially dangerous hires before bringing them into contact with students.

The Do Not Hire Registry

The Do Not Hire Registry, administered by TEA, maintains a list of individuals who are prohibited from employment in Texas schools due to serious misconduct. SB 571’s requirement that applicants disclose whether they’re included in this registry, combined with schools’ obligation to check the registry during hiring, creates a statewide system to prevent known abusers and dangerous individuals from simply moving between districts.

Schools that fail to properly screen applicants and subsequently hire someone who commits sexual abuse may face enhanced liability under HB 4623 for gross negligence in hiring, as the failure to conduct proper background checks demonstrates a reckless disregard for student safety.

Practical Implications for School Districts

The coordinated reforms of HB 4623 and SB 571 create significant new obligations and risks for Texas public schools. Districts must now implement comprehensive systems that address prevention, detection, reporting, and accountability:

Immediate Reporting Compliance (SB 571):

• Train all professionals on the 24-hour deadline for reporting suspected abuse to DFPS or external law enforcement
• Establish clear protocols ensuring reports go to external agencies, not school police
• Train principals on 48-hour reporting obligations to superintendents
• Ensure superintendents understand both the 48-hour TEA/SBEC reporting deadline and criminal liability for intentional concealment
• Implement systems for using TEA’s Misconduct Reporting Portal
• Educate staff on the expanded definition of abuse, including educator-student relationships under Penal Code § 21.12

Prevention and Screening (SB 571):

• Implement comprehensive pre-employment affidavit requirements
• Check the Do Not Hire Registry for all applicants
• Verify all disclosures and consent to employment record releases
• Conduct thorough background checks beyond minimum requirements
• Document all screening procedures to defend against HB 4623 “gross negligence in hiring” claims

Transparency and Communication (SB 571):

• Adopt board policies for parent notification when misconduct allegations arise
• Ensure notices include required elements: that misconduct occurred, employment status, and whether reports were filed
• Create systems to track and document parent notifications

Liability Protection and Risk Management (HB 4623):

• Maintain adequate liability insurance coverage for claims under the statutory framework
• Document supervision, training, and institutional response to protect against liability
• Implement robust policies for preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse
• Create clear documentation systems showing compliance with all SB 571 reporting requirements
• Understand that violations of SB 571 duties will be used as evidence in HB 4623 lawsuits

The combined effect of these laws incentivizes proactive institutional responsibility rather than reactive damage control. School districts that fail to take prevention and reporting seriously now face:

• Criminal prosecution of superintendents under SB 571 (state jail felony for concealment)
• Civil liability up to $500,000 per act or omission for each claimant, plus attorney fees under HB 4623
• Reputational damage and loss of public trust
• Increased insurance premiums and difficulty obtaining coverage
• State sanctions and potential intervention by TEA/SBEC

What Victims Should Know

If you or someone you know experienced sexual abuse by a school employee, or if school officials failed to report suspected abuse, several important points should guide your next steps:

Time is Critical

While HB 4623 provides an extended 30-year statute of limitations for sexual abuse claims, gathering evidence becomes more difficult as time passes. Witnesses’ memories fade, documents are destroyed, and proving your case becomes more challenging. If you’re considering legal action, consulting with an attorney sooner rather than later is advisable.

Documentation Matters

Preserve any evidence related to the abuse, including:

• Medical records and treatment documentation
• Mental health counseling records
• Communications with school officials
• Reports made to law enforcement or child protective services
• Any contemporaneous notes, diaries, or records you created
• Contact information for potential witnesses

You Must Name Both the Employee and School

HB 4623 requires that lawsuits name both the individual employee and the school district as defendants. A claim against only one party will not comply with the law’s requirements. This procedural requirement ensures proper notice and protects defendants’ due process rights while enabling victims to pursue recovery from both sources.

Understanding Your Rights Under Both Laws

The reforms create multiple layers of accountability:

• School employees had a duty to report within 24 hours to DFPS or external law enforcement (SB 571 – applies to all schools)
• Administrators had duties to report within 48 hours through the chain to TEA/SBEC (SB 571 – applies to public schools)
• You have up to 30 years to file a civil lawsuit for sexual abuse against both the employee and school district (HB 4623 – public schools only)
• You can recover up to $500,000 per act or omission, plus attorney fees for actual damages (HB 4623 – public schools only)
• Reporting failures strengthen your case: Violations of SB 571’s clear reporting deadlines provide strong evidence of the school’s gross negligence in your HB 4623 lawsuit

Criminal vs. Civil vs. Administrative Actions

Understanding the different types of legal proceedings is important:

Criminal prosecution (under existing law and SB 571): The abuser may be criminally charged, and superintendents who concealed misconduct may face state jail felony charges. These cases seek punishment through incarceration, fines, and criminal records.

Civil lawsuit (under HB 4623): You sue both the employee and school district for monetary compensation. The standard is “preponderance of evidence” (more likely than not), which is easier to meet than criminal “beyond reasonable doubt.” You can pursue this even if criminal charges aren’t filed or don’t result in conviction.

Administrative action (under SB 571): TEA/SBEC may revoke or suspend the abuser’s teaching certificate, preventing them from working in Texas schools. This protects other children but doesn’t provide you with compensation.

You can pursue all three simultaneously. A criminal conviction or certificate revocation can help your civil case, but isn’t required for you to win damages under HB 4623.

Legal Representation Is Essential

Claims under these new laws involve complex legal and factual issues, including:

• Proving the abuse occurred and its impact on your life
• Establishing the school’s gross negligence in hiring, supervising, or employing the abuser
• Documenting violations of SB 571’s reporting requirements to strengthen your case
• Navigating the sovereign immunity waiver and remaining legal defenses
• Calculating and documenting actual damages within the $500,000 cap
• Meeting the dual-defendant requirement (naming both employee and school)
• Adhering to procedural requirements and statutes of limitations
• Coordinating civil litigation with any criminal prosecution or administrative actions

An experienced attorney can evaluate your case, explain your rights under both HB 4623 and SB 571, gather necessary evidence, and advocate for full compensation within the law’s framework.

Contact Varghese Summersett for Help with School Abuse Claims

The attorneys at Varghese Summersett understand the profound impact of childhood sexual abuse and the courage it takes for survivors to come forward. If you believe you have a claim under Texas’s new school accountability laws—whether based on sexual misconduct, failure to report abuse, or violations of mandatory reporting requirements—our experienced legal team can help you understand your rights and pursue the justice and compensation you deserve.

Our attorneys are well-versed in both HB 4623’s civil liability provisions and SB 571’s reporting requirements. We can help you:

• Evaluate whether school employees violated their 24-hour reporting obligations
• Investigate whether administrators failed to report to TEA/SBEC within required timelines
• Document evidence of gross negligence in hiring, supervising, or retaining abusive employees
• Build a strong case for actual damages within the statutory framework
• Navigate the complexities of suing both the individual employee and school district
• Coordinate civil litigation with any criminal prosecution or administrative actions

With offices throughout Texas, including Fort Worth, Southlake, Dallas, and Houston, we are positioned to represent victims across the state. We offer confidential consultations where we can review your situation, explain how these landmark reforms apply to your case, and outline your legal options.