Lawsuit Filed: Complaint Alleges Teacher-Student Sexual Assault

By Emily Wright

BUCKS COUNTY, PA — The Keystone Central School District, along with Central Mountain High School (CMHS) and several individual defendants, were named in a lawsuit filed July 25, 2025, in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. 

The civil action, brought by a former CMHS student identified under the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” due to the nature of the case, alleges institutional sexual abuse, sexual assault, widespread negligence, and a pervasive culture of inaction that allowed for the sexual assault of a then-minor student by a former teacher and former football coach, James C. Renninger. The former CMHS student is now seeking damages in the amount more than $50,000 through the lawsuit. 

Key Allegations in the Complaint

Jane Doe is represented by Attorney Jay L. Edelstein, Esquire, of Edelstein Law LLP, who filed the case with the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in July. 

Leading up to the events that prompted the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, to file the lawsuit, she had recently returned to CMHS following an involuntary incarceration at a juvenile detention center for an altercation that had occurred while she was on probation from school for possession of marijuana. According to the Complaint filed by her attorney, Jane Doe’s return to CMHS “felt less like a fresh start, and more like a continuation of her sentence,” as she was “ostracized by many of her peers, teachers, and administrators at CMHS.” She claims that at school, she “heard whispers, conversations around her that cut short, and awkward silences” as she walked through the hallways. At times, the Complaint states, Jane Doe was bullied and “shunned by the CMHS community.” The filing further alleges that “the environment at CMHS was ‘poisonous’ to Jane Doe, and made her ‘susceptible to the subsequent grooming by Defendant Renninger.’”

In the spring semester of 2011, Jane Doe was enrolled in one of Renninger’s classes, which gave him more time and opportunities to interact with her at school. Consequently, a “power dynamic of imbalance and vulnerability existed between Jane Doe and Defendant Renninger”, as the Complaint points out, adding to what the Complaint alleges was a preexisting “power dynamic of imbalance and vulnerability between teacher and student”. 

Renninger witnessed the maltreatment and harassment that Jane Doe reportedly experienced from her peers at CMHS, and according to the Complaint, he would “go out of his way to treat Jane Doe differently”. Renninger is accused of taking “special interest” in her, smiling at her in acknowledgment, and “repeatedly” complimenting her on her appearance when he saw her in school. 

Central to the 47-page complaint is the account of an incident that occurred on May 6, 2011, at CMHS in which Jane Doe, then 17 years old, was allegedly groomed and sexually assaulted by Renninger. According to the court filing, Jane Doe was outside Renninger’s classroom when he saw her being agitated and harassed by her peers. In response, Renninger allegedly “suggested and/or offered that Jane Doe could eat lunch in his classroom with him”—a gesture that appeared kind, considering the way other students at CMHS had treated her. The Complaint states that Jane Doe “innocently and unsuspectingly” accepted Renninger’s invitation and entered the classroom, where she sat in the fourth row from the front.

The Complaint reads, “suddenly and without warning or consent, Defendant Renninger locked the classroom door… grabbed Jane Doe’s face… started kissing Jane Doe…”.  The complaint details further non-consensual acts, which it alleges Renninger “forced” on Jane Doe. 

According to the account of the assault in the court document, CMHS students gathered outside of the classroom at or around the time of the assault and were attempting to enter the room, but the door was locked. It states that “After Defendant Renninger finished sexually assaulting Jane Doe, he let go of Jane Doe,” leaving her “in a daze of confusion, humiliation, and emotional pain.”

After the alleged assault, Jane Doe reportedly “stormed out of Defendant Renninger’s classroom”, causing some of the CMHS students to begin to “suspect that something inappropriate was happening” between Renninger and Jane Doe, leading to rumors amongst the student body that Renninger and Jane Doe “had a sexual affair”. 

Approximately two weeks after the alleged sexual assault, Jane Doe reportedly encountered Renninger at the local YMCA with his wife. At that time, the Complaint alleges, “in words of substance, Defendant Renninger asked Jane Doe if she had told anyone that he sexually assaulted her.” Jane Doe said that she had not, although she had in fact told her very close friend about the incident. 

Failure of Mandatory Reporting and Alleged Culture of Negligence

The lawsuit alleges a broad institutional failure to safeguard students. Court documents allege that multiple individuals within the school and district—named as “John Does 1-5″—had a legal duty as mandatory reporters to alert authorities about suspected child abuse, citing Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303, and points to other applicable state and federal laws and regulations, stressing that all school employees, including teachers and coaches, are mandated reporters who carry the responsibility to make reports of suspected abuse. 

According to the complainant, on or about May 10, 2011, rumors circulating about Renninger and Jane Doe raised concerns among the CMHS administration, prompting them to interview her in the administration office. A CMHS staff member informed Jane Doe that an incident report had been filed concerning her and Renninger. According to the court documents, “Jane Doe, still only seventeen years old and now a victim of sexual assault, was still young, traumatized, and afraid.” The filing further states, “Jane Doe feared that if she told the truth, she would not be believed and would be caused to suffer within the CMHS community,” leading her to deny the incident when speaking with CMHS administrator(s).

According to the complaint, CMHS administrators allegedly failed to conduct any further investigation into the matter and did not offer Jane Doe counseling or refer her to the hospital or a school nurse. The document states that “upon information and belief, CMHS did not notify Child Protective Services” and “did not notify the local police.”

The Plaintiff’s attorney alleges that Doe was not the only victim: court filings claim that Renninger “allegedly had inappropriate relationships with multiple other female high school students prior to his sexual assault of Jane Doe” and further states that he “was formerly counseled by Keystone Central for allegedly making inappropriate and/or explicit comments to at least one female student at CMHS prior to his sexual assault of Jane Doe.” Court documents further contend that KCSD and CMHS employees “knew or should have known Defendant Renninger had inappropriate relationships with multiple other female high school students prior to his sexual assault of Jane Doe” and that the district and CMHS employees “knew or should have known” Renninger had “engaged Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, in an inappropriate, intimate, abusive, manipulative, and/or exploitative relationship that could result in foreseeable harm to Jane Doe”. 

The Complaint alleges that Jane Doe was not the only victim, and Renninger was not the only perpetrator of such acts: “Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Keystone Central and CMHS personnel-including teachers, staff, administrators, coaches, student resource officers, and other employees knew or should have known that, on multiple occasions, employees of Keystone Central and/or CMHS engaged in inappropriate and/or unlawful relationships with CMHS students, including minors. Such conduct included, but was not limited to, sexual assault, sexual misconduct, grooming behaviors, boundary violations, and other actions that plainly violated the professional, ethical, and legal standards governing school personnel.” 

The Complaint continues, alleging that KCSD and CMHS teachers, staff, administrators, coaches, student resource officers, and other employees “knew or should have known that their actions and failures to act created and sustained a permissive environment in which teacher-student sexual misconduct was allowed to take hold and metastasize throughout the school community with little risk of detection, investigation, discipline, or rebuke.” 

Connection to Known Statewide Abuse Scandals

The complaint contextualizes the allegations against the backdrop of Pennsylvania’s reckoning with institutional child sexual abuse, specifically referencing the Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile child sexual abuse scandal. It states that CMHS “was the epicenter of the investigation into ‘Victim 1,’ from which initial reports of Sandusky’s abuse emerged, and Keystone Central and CMHS served as the originating site of what would become a national scandal,” the attorney wrote. 

Despite this, the suit alleges, “Keystone Central and CMHS allowed their ongoing institutional inaction and indifference toward teacher-student sexual misconduct to persist, thereby exposing students to continued risk of harm, emotional trauma, and sexual misconduct, including minor students like Jane Doe.” 

Personal Injuries Sustained by Jane Doe

As a result of what Jane Doe’s attorney referred to as “negligence, gross negligence, outrageous, and reckless conduct of all Defendants,” the suit alleges Jane Doe sustained severe, painful, and permanent personal injuries after the assault, a few of which that are named specifically in the Complaint include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), medical expenses, humiliation, short and long-term disability, grief, anxiety, bodily deformation, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of well-being, and an inability to engage in everyday activities, duties, and recreations. 

Legal Causes: Negligence, Institutional Sexual Assault, Civil Conspiracy, and More

Jane Doe’s filing accuses all defendants—including Keystone Central School District, Renninger, the unidentified individuals “John Does 1-5”, and corporate defendants identified as “ABC Corporations 1-5”—of:

• Negligence: Failing to prevent, investigate, report, and discipline unlawful sexual acts and/or assault of the Plaintiff; negligently “maintaining and concealing an environment of sexual abuse of students”; failing to report abuse as required by law; implementing negligent hiring and retention practices “when Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant Renninger was capable of predatory behavior against students, particularly minor students, like Plaintiff”; “negligently and/or willfully maintaining and concealing an environment of sexual abuse of students” and “failing to create and/or implement a system at CMHS to ensure maintenance of professional boundaries between its teachers and its students” to prevent unlawful sexual acts from occurring. 

• Institutional Sexual Assault: The suit cites Pennsylvania statute 18 Pa. Cons. Stat § 3124.2 whereby “a person who is a volunteer or an employee of a school or any other person who has direct contact with a student at a school commits a felony of the third degree when he engages in sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse or indecent contact with a student of the school.” Also under Count II: Institutional Sexual Assault, the Complaint states that “School districts and schools alike have a legal and ethical responsibility to keep students safe. Sexual Relationships between staff or volunteers and students abuse that trust and can damage child development or exploit power dynamics. Society recognizes that adults in school settings hold authority and responsibility; using that to engage sexually with students is criminalized to deter exploitation. Thus, under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat § 3124.2, even if a minor appears to consent, it’s automatically non-consensual under the statute.”

• Civil Conspiracy/Aiding and Abetting: The district is alleged to have “acted in concert with Defendant Renninger to conceal his tortious sexually exploitative conduct with Plaintiff Jane Doe,” to “prevent or discourage teachers, administrators, principals, staff, student resource officers, employees, and/or other personnel from reporting child abuse pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services law.” This allegation highlights that under Pennsylvania law, a Civil Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree (expressly or impliedly) to act together in furtherance of a common purpose to commit unlawful act(s) or a lawful act by unlawful means. Jane Doe’s attorney cites two other similar cases to solidify this position.   

• Vicarious Liability: The district is accused of ratifying and failing to stop Renninger’s allegedly predatory conduct despite prior complaints and known risk factors, accusing the district of engaging in “unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct which facilitated the sexual assault of Plaintiff Jane Doe,” and later stating that prior to the assault of Jane Doe, the district “knew, had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice of” the aforementioned conduct, but “failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of sexual assault, corruption of minors, sexual exploitation, and other wrongful acts” allegedly committed by Renninger. 
• Sexual Assault and Indecent Assault, Corruption of Minors, Assault, Battery, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: These individual claims are only against Renninger specifically.

Damages and Relief Sought

Jane Doe is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from the district, Renninger, and all other Defendants for a variety of injuries, including emotional distress, mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment, loss of self-worth, flashbacks, nightmares, loss of intimacy, humiliation, loss of life’s pleasures, and other physical and psychological harms (including those that may be diagnosed in the future). To compensate for her personal injuries following the alleged sexual assault, she is also requesting monetary damages in the amount more than $50,000. 

Defendant Renninger’s Firm Denials

In response to the allegations, James C. Renninger, through his attorney William E. Scott, Esquire, denied the vast majority of allegations, stating that they are “legal conclusions which are at issue and are therefore deemed denied” in a formal court filing that followed the Complaint. 

Renninger’s legal team issued a sweeping denial, stating, “It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant locked his classroom door at any time during the school day,” and, “It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant ever grabbed any student’s face.” 

The response also rejected claims of inappropriate interactions, declaring, “It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant kissed any student,” and, “It is specifically denied that at any time Answering Defendant sexually assaulted any student.” Renninger further denied ever having inappropriately touched any student or having had inappropriate relationships with any female high school student.

Further, Renninger denied that he “was counseled by Keystone Central at any time. It is further denied that there was any sexual assault of Plaintiff Jane Doe. 

For several paragraphs— especially those presumably making allegations not directly about Renninger himself but about procedures, background events, school policy, administration conduct, etc— Renninger asserts he lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegation and therefore denies them.

Virtually all allegations of negligence, statutory and regulatory violations, institutional failures, foreseeability, “proximate cause,” and the entire basis for legal responsibility were denied by Renninger as “legal conclusions”, forcing Jane Doe to prove every allegation she made. 

Defendant Renninger repeatedly and systematically denies all the allegations that would form the basis “for any negligence, recklessness and outrageous conduct.” Moreover, his attorneys argued that if the plaintiff did suffer any injuries and damages as alleged in her Complaint, “said injuries and damages were caused solely by the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Defendants Keystone Central School District, John Does 1-5, and ABC Corporations 1-5,” and not by Renninger himself, “making Defendants Keystone Central School District, John Does 1-5, and ABC Corporations 1-5 solely liable on the Plaintiff’s cause of action.”

Legal Fight Expands: Motions, Replies, and Delays

Notably, Keystone Central School District itself was granted more time to respond to Jane Doe’s Complaint, with Judge Denise Bowman granting a deadline extension to September 17, 2025, to file an Answer or Preliminary Objections to Jane Doe’s Complaint.

Meanwhile, Jane Doe’s legal team continues to reject every new defense raised in a document filed with the Bucks County Court on September 10, 2025. In reply, attorney Edelstein stressed that “Strict proof” is demanded at trial, and “Answering Defendant’s misconduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harms, losses, and damages.”

What’s Next?

 The lawsuit is at an early stage, and the court has yet to weigh the claims and defenses. All parties are entitled to a fair hearing, and the allegations remain unproven unless and until established in court.