In
Doe v. Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109006 (ED WA, July 30, 2013), a Washington federal district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in a suit alleging negligence by the Catholic diocese, the bishop and the parish after a deacon raped a 17-year old male parishioner. The court said in part:
the Free Exercise Clause does not bar a negligence claim against Defendants for hiring Ramirez and placing him in a position of trust and authority from which he was able to sexually abuse Plaintiff....
It would be irrational to require a child sexual abuse victim, who seeks to bring a negligence claim against a church, to prove that the church had actual knowledge of the risk posed by its abuser employee. In effect, it would create a disincentive for a church to investigate prospective employees before placing them in positions of trust and authority over children. Instead, churches would be motivated to engage in "ostrich" behavior to avoid confronting – and thus being forced to act upon – potential warning signs about such employees. Protecting children is a paramount policy consideration ... and it is ill-served if those trusted with such responsibility can blithely ignore red flags about their employees and subsequently avoid liability for the ensuing harm.
