Mountain View School District to Pay $700,000 to Settle Harassment Claims Against Former Superintendent

Board president Charles DiFazio announced the settlements on October 22, 2026, after the board approved them unanimously in closed session. The accusations had not been public before that announcement, according to the Mountain View Voice (Mountain View Voice; Palo Alto Daily Post).

What do the women allege?

Both women alleged that Rudolph sexually harassed and discriminated against them while he led the district. Both also alleged that the district failed "to provide oversight and properly respond to misconduct" by Rudolph, according to the Mountain View Voice. The settlement agreements the district released don't describe the specific conduct, and the district declined to release the original complaints, calling them confidential and privileged.

One woman submitted her complaint through an attorney on October 4, 2024. The district announced Rudolph's leave of absence three days later, and he resigned on November 1, 2024. The Palo Alto Daily Post notes that his leave also came after he announced that a state fiscal oversight team planned to audit the district for potential fraud. The second woman filed her complaint on November 19, 2024. In May 2026, both women filed complaints with the California Civil Rights Department (Mountain View Voice).

These are allegations. No court or agency has made findings about them.

What did Rudolph say?

In an email to the Mountain View Voice, Rudolph wrote that it "must be election time again!", cited Bible passages, and said he was not part of the investigation. The Voice reported that he did not directly deny the allegations.

When Rudolph resigned in 2024, the board approved a resignation agreement that paid him roughly $100,000 and included language meant to keep him and the district from suing each other. The Palo Alto Daily Post reported the payment as $98,259 (Palo Alto Daily Post).

What does the settlement include?

According to both outlets:

• $350,000 to each woman, for $700,000 total. The Voice reports that each payment includes $144,968.18 in attorney's fees.
• A release of claims. Both women gave up the right to sue the district over their complaints and agreed to withdraw their Civil Rights Department complaints.
• A new reporting structure. The district agreed to restructure its complaint process so administrators don't have to report harassment or discrimination to the alleged harasser or to anyone who reports directly to that person.

DiFazio said, "The board takes seriously its role to provide a safe and healthy workplace," and that sharing the information is part of being "an accountable and transparent organization" (Palo Alto Daily Post). Superintendent Jeff Baier wrote, "We appreciate the immense courage it takes for employees to come forward with concerns."

In a statement through her attorney, one of the women asked the district to improve its reporting structure, prevent retaliation, make sure everyone knows how to report, and provide "real bystander training." She wrote, "Policies afford protection only if the people who need them know they exist and how to use them" (Mountain View Voice).

Why this case matters

When the alleged harasser is the person at the top, the usual reporting chain breaks. Everyone in HR and management ultimately answers to them. That's the problem the district's new complaint structure is meant to fix, and it's a problem at plenty of workplaces, from school districts to small businesses run by their founders.

The case is also a reminder that harassment isn't limited to entry-level jobs. These claims came from school administrators, and they were resolved after the women hired attorneys and filed with the state.

What this means for California workers

• You don't have to report to your boss. Every California employer's complaint process must give you a way to complain that doesn't require going to your immediate supervisor, and it must provide a timely response and an impartial investigation by qualified personnel (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11023(b)). If the policy only points you toward the person harassing you or their direct reports, go to someone else the policy names, or straight to the Civil Rights Department.
• Your employer has to try to prevent harassment. California requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(k)).
• Reporting is protected. Punishing you for complaining about harassment, or for helping with an investigation, is illegal retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(h)). Our guide on retaliation after reporting harassment explains what that looks like.
• You can go to the state. You can file with the California Civil Rights Department whether or not you complained inside the company, generally within three years. Our guide on how long you have to file a sexual harassment claim explains the deadlines.

If someone with power over your job is harassing you, start a private, dated record of what happens, and read our guide on how to report sexual harassment at work.

Sources: Mountain View Voice (Oct. 23, 2026); Palo Alto Daily Post (Oct. 23, 2026).

This article is general information about California and federal law as of its date, not legal advice for your situation. Laws change, and the right move depends on your facts.