The boy allegedly rejected her advances on several occasions. Once should have been enough. I’m not buying the ‘rape’ aspect except in the statutory sense, and the local taxpayers shouldn’t pay out a cent. They didn’t facilitate the crime, and neither did the school, for that matter. I think this is a case of litigation-happy Americans looking for some coin.
I think you’re right; when priests raped minors the Church was only on the hook for repeat offenders they were already aware of. Otherwise, it is simply a criminal charge against the perp (the larger institution had no way to anticipate the crime).
BTW, this is a big issue with these prisoner re-entry programs (to employ ex-cons). How does a business defend itself if they knowingly hire someone with a violent criminal past, and he/she beats a co-worker or customer?