Four distinct theories
- Negligent hiring: the organisation took someone on without the checks that
would have revealed a risk. - Negligent supervision: it allowed circumstances in which abuse was possible
and did not monitor them. - Negligent retention: a concern arose and the person stayed.
- Failure to report: staff legally required to report a suspicion did not.
They frequently overlap, and more than one usually applies. Each is a claim about what the
organisation did, which is why a case can succeed even where the individual is dead, unidentified
or was never prosecuted.
Why this shifts what must be proved
The question moves from reconstructing a specific day years ago to establishing what an
organisation knew and how it responded. That is a question institutions answer in writing, in
their own records, at the time.
Notice is the hinge
Most institutional cases turn on notice: was there an earlier complaint, an incident report, a
rumour recorded in a file, a reference request from another employer. Establishing notice is
usually what converts a difficult case into a strong one.
Time limits in New York depend on how old you were, who was responsible and the particular facts. There is no single deadline that applies to everyone. Ask rather than assume. It is a free call.
What counts as the institution being ‘on notice’?
Less than people assume. A prior complaint, an incident report, a documented rumour, a reference request from another employer, or a pattern someone recorded can all contribute. It rarely requires a formal allegation.
Can more than one theory apply at once?
Usually yes, and they are commonly pleaded together. Hiring, supervision, retention and reporting failures tend to overlap in the same set of facts.
What if the individual was never identified?
A claim can still exist. These theories concern the organisation’s own conduct (how it controlled access, supervised its premises and responded) rather than requiring the individual to be named.