Recent Developments in Connecticut Regarding Sexual Misconduct by Clergy and Church Workers – Part 1

A Connecticut court ruled that the first amendment did not prevent it from resolving a woman’s claim that a church and diocese were legally responsible on the basis of “negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision” for the acts of a priest who molested her when she was a minor.

Church Law and Tax1999-09-01

Sexual Misconduct by Clergy and Church Workers

Key point. The respondeat superior doctrine imposes liability on employers for the acts of their employees committed within the scope of their employment. Churches cannot be legally responsible on the basis of respondeat superior for the sexual misconduct of clergy or lay employees, since such acts do not occur within the scope of employment.

Key point. Some courts have concluded that the first amendment does not necessarily prevent religious organizations from being sued on the basis of negligent hiring or negligent supervision for the sexual misconduct of clergy.

A Connecticut court ruled that the first amendment did not prevent it from resolving a woman’s claim that a church and diocese were legally responsible on the basis of “negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision” for the acts of a priest who molested her when she was a minor. The woman alleged that for four years, when she was a minor, a priest counseled her concerning spiritual and personal matters and held himself out as a person whom she could trust and confide in during a difficult time in her life. The woman alleged that the priest sexually molested her during these counseling sessions. She sued her church and diocese when she became an adult, claiming that they were legally responsible for the priest’s acts on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision.

Respondeat Superior

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is legally responsible for the acts of its employees committed within the scope of their employment. However, for an employer to be liable for an employee’s intentional wrongs, “the employee must be acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the employer’s business.” The court noted that this case involved “a minor who was sexually abused by a priest who was supposed to be counseling her through a difficult emotional period of her life.” As such, it was one of those “exceptional” cases “where the employees act was clearly a digression from duty and beyond the scope of employment.” Further, the abuse did not further the interests of the church, and the church did not “directly or indirectly profit” from the priest’s actions.

Negligence

The church and diocese argued that the plaintiff’s negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision claims should be dismissed as well, since they could not be resolved without the court “entangling itself in matters of religion” in violation of the first amendment. The court disagreed:

The first amendment to the United States Constitution forbids any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …. The free exercise clause prohibits excessive state entanglement with religion …. Although no Supreme Court decision has determined the applicability of the free exercise clause of the first amendment as a defense for a religious organization’s negligent conduct, the Court has held that the first amendment does not create blanket tort immunity for religious institutions or their clergy, thus allowing clergy and [religious] institutions to be sued for torts they commit.

The court concluded that allowing the plaintiff in this case to maintain her lawsuit against the church and diocese based on negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision “would not prejudice or impose upon any of the religious tenets or practices of Catholicism.”

Application. This case illustrates the difficulty victims of clergy sexual misconduct face in suing their church on the basis of respondeat superior. On the other hand, the case demonstrates that victims may have more success in pursuing negligence claims. While many courts in recent year have ruled that the first amendment bars the civil courts from resolving negligence claims based on clergy sexual misconduct, this case illustrates that there are exceptions to this general rule. Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, 716 A.2d 960 (Conn. App. 1998). [Seduction of Counselees and Church Members, Negligence as a Basis for Liability, Denominational Liability]

This content is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. "From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations." Due to the nature of the U.S. legal system, laws and regulations constantly change. The editors encourage readers to carefully search the site for all content related to the topic of interest and consult qualified local counsel to verify the status of specific statutes, laws, regulations, and precedential court holdings.

ajax-loader-largecaret-downcloseHamburger Menuicon_amazonApple PodcastsBio Iconicon_cards_grid_caretChild Abuse Reporting Laws by State IconChurchSalary Iconicon_facebookGoogle Podcastsicon_instagramLegal Library IconLegal Library Iconicon_linkedinLock IconMegaphone IconOnline Learning IconPodcast IconRecent Legal Developments IconRecommended Reading IconRSS IconSubmiticon_select-arrowSpotify IconAlaska State MapAlabama State MapArkansas State MapArizona State MapCalifornia State MapColorado State MapConnecticut State MapWashington DC State MapDelaware State MapFederal MapFlorida State MapGeorgia State MapHawaii State MapIowa State MapIdaho State MapIllinois State MapIndiana State MapKansas State MapKentucky State MapLouisiana State MapMassachusetts State MapMaryland State MapMaine State MapMichigan State MapMinnesota State MapMissouri State MapMississippi State MapMontana State MapMulti State MapNorth Carolina State MapNorth Dakota State MapNebraska State MapNew Hampshire State MapNew Jersey State MapNew Mexico IconNevada State MapNew York State MapOhio State MapOklahoma State MapOregon State MapPennsylvania State MapRhode Island State MapSouth Carolina State MapSouth Dakota State MapTennessee State MapTexas State MapUtah State MapVirginia State MapVermont State MapWashington State MapWisconsin State MapWest Virginia State MapWyoming State IconShopping Cart IconTax Calendar Iconicon_twitteryoutubepauseplay
caret-downclosefacebook-squarehamburgerinstagram-squarelinkedin-squarepauseplaytwitter-square