Key point 10-09.1. Some courts have found churches liable on the basis of negligent supervision for a worker’s acts of child molestation on the ground that the church failed to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of the victim or of its own programs and activities.
Key point 10-02.3. Churches can be legally responsible on the basis of the respondeat superior doctrine for the actions of their employees only if those actions are committed within the course of employment and further the mission and functions of the church. Intentional and self-serving acts of church employees often will not satisfy this standard.
A New York court ruled that a pastor who engaged in sexual affairs with two adult women was not liable for his acts on the basis of breach of a fiduciary duty. Two women (the “plaintiffs”) sued the pastor for breach of fiduciary duty and infliction of emotional distress, and sought to hold the church liable for negligent supervision. The court concluded that “to demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary duty between a cleric and congregant in a formal counseling relationship, there must be characteristics of control and dominance in the relationship,” and that a relationship is marked by control and dominance “when the congregant is uniquely vulnerable and incapable of self-protection.”
The court concluded that there can be no liability for sexual misconduct on the basis of negligent supervision without proof that a church was aware of prior, similar acts. This demonstrates the importance of church leaders responding quickly and adequately to allegations of sexual misconduct by any employee or volunteer.
Although the plaintiffs claimed that they were uniquely vulnerable and incapable of self-protection, the court concluded that “that contention is belied by their acknowledgments in the complaint that they both promptly ended their relationships with the pastor once they learned he was having affairs with both of them.” Since the pastor was not guilty of breaching a fiduciary duty, the church could not be vicariously liable on this basis. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the church was liable for the pastor’s conduct on the basis of negligent supervision. It concluded that the church could not be liable on the basis of negligent supervision unless it knew or should have known of prior incidents of sexual misconduct involving the pastor. Since the church was not aware of any such prior incidents, it could not be liable on the basis of negligent supervision.
What This Means For Churches:
This case illustrates two important points. First, it is difficult to establish church liability on the basis of breach of a fiduciary duty. This court concluded that this form of liability required proof of a counseling relationship involving “control and dominance.”
Second, the court concluded that there can be no liability for sexual misconduct on the basis of negligent supervision without proof that a church was aware of prior, similar acts. This demonstrates the importance of church leaders responding quickly and adequately to allegations of sexual misconduct by any employee or volunteer. Spielman v. Carrino, 910 N.Y.S.2d 105 (N.Y.A.D., 2011).
This Recent Development first appeared in Church Law and Tax Report, March/April 2012.
