In a landmark ruling, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has allowed a lawsuit to move forward against Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) and three of its employees, on the grounds of negligence related to a 2019 child sex abuse case. The family's lawsuit, which alleges their child was sexually abused by Ricardo Mata, owner of PlaySpanish LLC, has been permitted to proceed despite CMS's claims of governmental immunity.
WSOCTV reports the abuse occurred at Eastover Elementary and Covenant Presbyterian Church. Mata, who has been associated with multiple sexual assault allegations since 1993, was granted continued access to school facilities and after-school programs, despite the district's knowledge of such complaints. The lawsuit charges CMS with negligence for failing to adhere to its own Community Use in Schools program regulations and policies, which provided PlaySpanish with access to its facilities.
This case revolves around the alleged assaults from 2016 to 2018, which took place during unauthorized "lock-down drills" in the school's after-school language program. The WCNC report highlights that Mata's criminal past, including previous accusations and an extradition related to an alleged sexual assault of a child in Georgia, was known to CMS as early as 2013. Following an October 2013 incident, CMS conducted a background check on Mata, but the results were not disseminated to principals or parents.
With regard to the individual CMS defendants, the appeals court concluded they were ineligible for public official immunity protection as they performed ministerial duties and not discretionary ones. The plaintiffs, identified by Carolina Journal as Jon and Alicia Brady, have filed claims that include intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence or gross negligence. Judge Jefferson Griffin, writing for the appeals court, explicitly stated, "We hold they are not entitled to either defense."
The court's decision underscores the critical distinction between proprietary functions, which waive governmental immunity, versus governmental functions. The implications are significant for CMS and the three employees, none of whom can seek the protection of governmental immunity in this instance.
