Can Special Ed Teacher Assaulted by Student Sue School District for Battery?

What Do You Think?

Employers who carry workers' compensation coverage are generally protected from personal injury lawsuits over employee injuries. But there are exceptions. 

In Oregon, for example, an injured worker can still sue for personal injury if she can show that the employer specifically intended for the employee to be injured. That’s a tough standard to meet.

Check in on compliance information from Oregon and 52 more U.S. jurisdictions with Simply Research.

A case involving an instructional assistant for students with disabilities highlights some factors that could either allow a case to proceed or stop it in its tracks.

In that case, incidents of student violence had been on the rise in the special education classroom where the instructional assistant worked. The assistant was assaulted five times there, she said. Students had also thrown urine-soaked clothes at her, pulled her hair, spit in her face, and thrown a variety of objects at her.

The assistant and her coworkers met with an assistant principal to get some safeguards in place because nothing was being done about the situation. At the meeting, the AP reportedly agreed to make changes that would keep staff safer. But no changes were implemented, according to the instructional assistant.

One day, a student began attacking the assistant and her colleagues. The assistant used her radio to ask the school administration to contact 911. An assistant principal cancelled the request for the 911 call, after which the student assaulted and injured the instructional assistant.

The employee sued the school district for battery. 

The school district asked the court to dismiss the case. It pointed out that the assistant failed to allege that the district intended to injure her.

In Oregon, the only remedy for an employee injured during work, for the most part, is workers’ compensation. There is an exception to that rule, however, if the employer had the deliberate intention of producing the injury. In that situation, an employee may be able to sue the employer in tort, such as by bringing a battery claim.

According to the Oregon Supreme Court, the employee, to succeed, must show that the employer specifically intended to injure the worker. Carelessness, even if it is extreme, is not enough. 

Did the assistant show the school district intended the injury?

A. No. The only possible explanation for the school district’s actions was that it was indifferent and careless. There was nothing to support a claim that it acted deliberately to cause injury.

B. Yes. The assistant highlighted actions on the part of the school district, such as the AP’s cancelling of the 911 call, that showed it was possible the school district intended her to be injured.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Erickson v. Salem-Keiser School District, No. 6:24-cv-1811-MC (D. Or. 04/04/25), which refused to dismiss the case.

In finding that the exception to the exclusivity provision might apply, the court pointed to the five alleged assaults that preceded the assistant's injuries, as well as her assertion that students were engaging in other physical aggression toward her. 

While this failure of the district to rectify the situation was not enough to show deliberate intent, the employee's additional allegations pushed the lawsuit over the threshold, allowing it to move forward. The court noted the following allegations:

• An AP met with the employee and other teachers to address their safety concerns because nothing was being done about it.
• The AP agreed to implement several changes but then failed to make any changes.
• On the day of the most violent assault, an administrator cancelled the employee’s requested 911 call, after which she and other employees were assaulted. 

Taken together, the court stated, the allegations would allow a jury to infer that the employer acted as it did because it wished to injure the employee. It very well might turn out that the school district had less nefarious motivations, of course. Perhaps, for example, the administrator who cancelled the emergency call believed the risk had subsided. 

“Or perhaps she simply wanted to avoid a newspaper article alerting the community that police had to be called to the school to deal with violent students,” the court wrote. 

At this stage of the case, the employee’s battery claim was sufficiently plausible to move forward.

Share This Article: