The plaintiff filed suit against his former track coach and the school district that employed him based on allegations that the track coach had sexually assaulted him. At issue was N.J.S.A. 59:2-1.3(a), a new statute which expanded public-entity civil liability for claims based on sexual assaults and other sexual misconduct by disabling in those instances the immunities provided by the Tort Claims Act. Here, the school district claimed that it was still entitled to immunity because it’s conduct was not willful, wanton or grossly negligent, as the statute requires. According to the school district, only the track coach engaged in that conduct so only his immunity is removed. But the Appellate Division disagreed and ruled that the plain language of the statute requires only that either “the public entity or public employee” engage in willful, wanton or grossly negligent behavior for all parties’ immunity to be removed. The Appellate Division then ruled that N.J.S.A. 59:2-10 and N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d) are also immunities granted under the Tort Claims Act and therefore those defenses are also removed by the new statute.