In C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, the plaintiff alleged that the school counselor who abused him had engaged in unlawful sexually related conduct with minors in the past and the school district knew or should have known or were put on notice of the counselor's past sexual abuse of minors and her "'propensity and disposition'" to engage in such abuse. (C.A., supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 866.) The issue before the Supreme Court in C.A. was whether the plaintiff's theory of liability for negligent hiring, retention and supervision was a legally viable one. The court concluded that "a public school district may be vicariously liable under section 815.2 for the negligence of administrators or supervisors in hiring, supervising and retaining a school employee who sexually harasses and abuses a student. Whether plaintiff in this case can prove the District's administrative or supervisory personnel were actually negligent in this respect is not a question we address in this appeal from dismissal on the sustaining of a demurrer." (Id. at p. 879.) Thus, C.A. cannot be read as requiring "proof of a dangerous propensity to sexually abuse minors" in a negligent supervision cause of action.