There has been growing national attention on a troubling practice in K–12 education known as “passing the trash.” Federal officials have announced investigations into how school districts handle allegations of staff-on-student sexual misconduct, including whether failures to investigate or disclose misconduct allow accused employees to move between districts.
But the problem goes beyond employees who leave while under investigation. Some districts stop investigating when an employee resigns. Others decline to investigate allegations disclosed years later because the employee no longer works there. Both practices raise serious concerns about student safety, institutional accountability, and due process.
What Is “Passing the Trash”?
“Passing the trash” generally refers to practices that allow school employees accused of sexual misconduct or other serious wrongdoing to resign, transfer, or obtain employment elsewhere without appropriate investigation, disclosure, or accountability.
These practices can include:
Abandoning investigations: Allowing an employee to resign rather than completing an investigation or reaching findings.
Concealing allegations: Entering into confidential separation agreements that restrict disclosure of misconduct allegations.
Providing misleading references: Giving neutral or positive employment references that obscure known misconduct concerns.
Failing to share information: Withholding relevant misconduct information from prospective employers or licensing authorities when disclosure is required.
Due Process Matters
Protecting students and protecting the rights of accused employees are not competing priorities.
An allegation is not a finding of misconduct. Just as schools should not abandon investigations when employees resign, they should not assume that terminating an accused employee eliminates the need to follow required procedures.
Under the applicable Title IX regulations, schools generally must complete the required grievance process before imposing disciplinary sanctions for Title IX sexual harassment. Terminating an employee for alleged Title IX misconduct without following that process can violate federal requirements. Separate employment actions based on independently established grounds may be permissible.
A fair, impartial investigation protects everyone involved. It gives complainants an opportunity to have their allegations evaluated, respondents an opportunity to respond, and schools a reliable factual basis for their decisions.
Protecting Children Is a Collective Responsibility
The mindset that “it's not our problem anymore” overlooks a fundamental reality: children do not become safer simply because an accused employee leaves one district. An employee who resigns amid allegations of misconduct may seek employment at another school or youth-serving organization. Without an appropriate investigation or legally required disclosures, the next employer may have little opportunity to identify potential risks.
Investigations serve purposes beyond determining whether an employee should be disciplined. They establish facts, identify potential victims, evaluate institutional responses, and inform measures to prevent future misconduct. Failing to investigate can also expose the original district to legal and reputational consequences. Unresolved allegations may conceal additional misconduct, other affected students, or institutional failures that require corrective action.
Illinois's Faith's Law and Other Similar State Laws Provide Important Safeguards
Illinois has taken important steps to address these concerns through Faith's Law, which strengthens employment screening and information-sharing requirements designed to prevent employees with histories of sexual misconduct from moving between schools without appropriate scrutiny.
Among other protections, the law requires covered school employers to review applicants' employment histories, including certain sexual misconduct allegations and related employment actions. It also restricts agreements that conceal sexual misconduct information.
Other states have adopted or pursued similar protections.
But legislation alone is not enough. These safeguards depend on districts conducting appropriate investigations, maintaining accurate records, and complying with reporting and disclosure obligations, even when employees have already departed.
The Bottom Line: Accountability Must Extend Beyond Employment
Protecting children is a collective responsibility. Schools must recognize that investigations are not simply tools for employee discipline. They are essential to establishing facts, identifying institutional failures, protecting due process, and preventing future harm. The question should not be, “Does this employee still work here?” It should be, “What do we need to do to ensure students are protected and the allegations are appropriately addressed?”
