Two recent cases have rejected First Amendment defenses by religious organizations to claims against them growing our of clergy sexual abuse charges. In Mary Doe SD v. Salvation Army, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69728 (ED MO, Sept. 20, 2007), plaintiff sued the Salvation Army for sexual abuse by one of its Captains who sexually abused her when she was a teenage volunteer camp counsellor at a Salvation Army summer day camp. The Salvation Army raised First Amendment defenses to claims that it negligently failed to protect plaintiff and to breach of fiduciary duty claims. A Missouri federal district court rejected these, saying: "Certainly ... Defendant does not contend that protecting children from a child abuser, investigating child abusers, or supervising employees violate any doctrine or practice of the Salvation Army." The court also rejected Establishment Clause defenses.
In Young v. Gelineau, (RI Super., Sept. 20, 2007), a Rhode Island trial court rejected Free Exercise defenses raised by the Catholic hierarchy to claims against it growing out of plaintiff's sexual molestation by a priest. Christopher Young claimed that the Church is liable for permitting Priest John Petrocelli to have contact with him and other minors after the Church knew that Petrocelli was a child molester. The court rejected the Church's First Amendment defenses, holding that the court's inquiry into the claims "will merely constitute the application of a neutral law and will not impose upon or significantly restrict the Hierarchy Defendants’ religious beliefs or practices." The court went on to reject the argument that since hiring, retention and supervision of a priest is based on Canon law, the suit should be dismissed under the Church Autonomy doctrine.
