Redlands Unified School District has substantially complied with nearly all the requirements of a court-ordered judgment aimed at improving its response to sexual misconduct complaints, according to the California Attorney General’s Office.
But despite major improvements in training, complaint investigations and student safety measures, the Justice Department found that about 21% of sexual misconduct cases at the district were resolved after required deadlines and without proper extensions, according to the attorney general’s second annual compliance report filed June 1 in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
“However, if the District continues with its strong efforts, we anticipate that it will reach substantial compliance with all provisions in the upcoming school year,” the report said.
Redlands Unified Superintendent Juan Cabral touted the district’s achievements in a three-page statement, saying the state’s “substantially compliant” rating was the highest possible rating, and reflected “the significant progress made in meeting the provisions outlined in the judgment.”
“This designation is not only a measure of compliance, it represents the collective effort of our staff, leaders and community to improve how we serve and protect our students,” Cabral said. “Over the past year, we have continued to strengthen our systems, deepen staff training and refine our practices to ensure that every report is handled with care, urgency and accountability.
The Attorney General’s Office sued Redlands Unified in 2024 after a 19-month civil rights investigation found the district systematically violated laws designed to protect students from sexual harassment, assault and abuse. Investigators concluded the district failed to adequately investigate complaints, properly train compliance personnel, follow mandatory reporting requirements, and implement legally sufficient policies and procedures.
To resolve its case with the district, the Attorney General’s Office entered into a stipulated agreement compelling the district to implement “wide-ranging reforms” so that it could “promptly prevent, stop and remedy sexual harassment, assault or abuse on its campuses.” The state provided a list of provisions for the district to meet, providing annual compliance reports to address the district’s progress and where it was falling short.
A two-year investigation, started in 2018 by the Southern California News Group, found that Redlands Unified, for decades, frequently failed to report to authorities teachers and other employees accused of grooming and sexually abusing students. The investigation also showed that, in some cases, district officials thwarted police investigations of sexual abuse cases.
What followed was a stream of sex abuse lawsuits and investigations by the San Bernardino County civil grand jury, the Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Since 2016, the district has paid out more than $52 million to resolve sex abuse lawsuits filed by more than 25 former students alleging they were sexually abused by teachers and coaches.
In its first compliance report last year, the state found that the district made significant progress expanding training, staffing and services to address sexual harassment and abuse complaints, meeting most requirements of the court-ordered reform plan. However, the state found the district still lagged in resolving sexual misconduct complaints, with 54% of 180 open complaints remaining unresolved and past the 60-day investigation deadline.
During its second year of state oversight — from June 2025 to June 2026 — the district continued its comprehensive training to staff and administrators on preventing, stopping and investigating sexual harassment and abuse and mandated reporter guidelines. It also provided age-appropriate training to students and parents/guardians about sexual harassment, assault and abuse, according to the compliance report.
The district, according to the report, maintained a centralized electronic system for tracking complaints and conducted two anonymous climate surveys to assess students’ experiences with sexual harassment, assault and abuse and their attitudes toward the district’s response to reports of it.
Last year, the district hired several new compliance team members to investigate and respond to sexual misconduct complaints, which the state said led to a “substantially improved” response time in the past year.
“In year two, the District has resolved nearly all complaints related to sexual harassment, assault or abuse,” according to the report, which noted that 41% of the 880 complaints the district received as of May 21 — 366 — included allegations of sexual harassment, assault or abuse.
As of May 21, the district had 107 unresolved sexual harassment, assault or abuse complaints, though 101 of them remained within the required 60-day investigation window, according to the report.
Cabral said the district’s work is far from finished and pledged to continue strengthening its response to complaints, improving accountability and prioritizing student safety.
In the coming year, Cabral said, the district will focus on promptly resolving complaints, enforcing policies consistently, expanding staff training, and using community feedback to guide continued improvements and strengthen student safety.
Irvine attorney Morgan Stewart, who represented most of the former students in sexual abuse cases against the district, said in an email Friday that while the district is complying with the state’s order, the Justice Department’s investigation should have never happened.
He said the sex abuse problem at the district was deeply rooted and institutional.
“The District had been failing to protect children for more than twenty years. The District could have saved itself money, time and effort by doing the right thing,” Stewart said. “But, I further believe that the District’s reforms as foisted upon them are simply placing a Band-Aid over an open fracture, and that ultimately the District needs reforms that limit entirely the risk of predators that overcomes protectionism of teachers by unions.”