by Kimberly Courtney, Esq.

Parents and students trust schools to make careful decisions about who is given access to children. That trust depends on a simple expectation: when a school knows of a serious risk, it acts to protect students.

A federal lawsuit filed against Brooklyn’s Saint Ann’s School alleges a failure to meet that responsibility.

The allegations, as set out in the complaint, describe a sequence of decisions in which known risks were ignored, safeguards were not imposed, and students were ultimately harmed.

This article summarizes those allegations to help families understand what the complaint claims and why it matters.

What the Complaint Alleges

The School Hired Him Knowing He Had a Criminal Record

According to the complaint, the school hired Winston Nguyen even though senior administrators knew he had a prior felony criminal conviction.

The complaint further alleges that the school failed to complete required background checks before allowing him to begin work and interact with students. For families, this matters because hiring is the first and most critical safety checkpoint. The complaint alleges that this checkpoint was bypassed.

The School Promoted Him to a Teaching Role

The allegations do not stop at hiring.

The complaint asserts that after the school had the background-check results and knew of his felony convictions, the school did not restrict his access to students. Instead, it allegedly promoted him into a classroom teaching role, expanding his authority and unsupervised contact with students.

According to the complaint, this promotion occurred without additional vetting and despite internal resistance from faculty members who were uncomfortable with the decision. Promotion matters because it signals trust and institutional endorsement to students and parents.

The School Knew of Ongoing Issues and Took No Meaningful Action

The complaint further alleges that once he was a teacher, the school became aware of repeated boundary violations and policy breaches. Parents, students, and faculty allegedly raised concerns about inappropriate conduct and excessive access to students. Rather than intervening, the complaint alleges that the school failed to impose safeguards, discipline, or meaningful supervision, allowing the situation to continue.

From a family perspective, this is often the most troubling phase. The allegation is not that the school lacked information, but that it had multiple opportunities to act and chose not to.

Plaintiffs Were Harmed

The final allegation is that Plaintiffs were seriously harmed as a direct result of these decisions.

According to the complaint, the authority, access, and legitimacy conferred by the school enabled the misconduct and led to lasting emotional, psychological, and reputational harm to Plaintiffs. These injuries, as alleged, were foreseeable and preventable had earlier action been taken.

Why These Allegations Matter to Families

This case raises questions every parent and student is entitled to ask:

How does a school respond when a background check reveals serious concerns?

Who decides whether a prior conviction disqualifies someone from student access?

Are policies enforced when doing so is uncomfortable?

Are concerns raised by families and students taken seriously?

Schools often speak about trust and values. Those principles only matter if they are backed by action when student safety is at stake.

Our Role Representing Students and Parents

We represent students and families in cases where schools fail to protect those in their care.

Our focus is not only on individual misconduct, but on institutional decision-making. What the school knew. When it knew it. What it did or failed to do in response.

Accountability matters, both for the families involved and to prevent similar harm to others.

If you are a student or parent with concerns that a school ignored warning signs or failed to act, you deserve clear answers and informed guidance.

Important Note

The statements above summarize allegations contained in a civil complaint. They are allegations only and have not been proven in court. The defendants deny wrongdoing, and the case is ongoing.