California Appeals Court: No Duty To Warn Congregants of Child Molester

In Conti v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., (CA App., April 13, 2015), a California state appeals court held that elders of a Jehovah's Witness congregation had no duty to warn the congregation in general, or parents, that another member of the congregation had previously molested a child.  In the case, Candace Conti who as a child was subsequently molested by the same fellow Church member (Jonathan Kendrick), sued the Congregation and its national Church body. The court concluded that a duty to warn arises only where there is a special relationship with the injured party:

While it is readily foreseeable that someone who has molested a child may do so again, the burden the duty to warn would create and the adverse social consequences the duty would produce outweigh its imposition. The burden would be considerable because the precedent could require a church to intervene whenever it has reason to believe that a congregation member is capable of doing harm, and the scope of that duty could not be limited with any precision..... Child molestation is a particularly heinous evil, but which other potential harms would the church have a duty to avert?... Imposition of a duty to warn would also have detrimental social consequences. It would discourage wrongdoers from seeking potentially beneficial intervention, and contravene the public policy against disclosure of penitential communications....

However the court upheld the jury's finding that the Church was negligent in failing to prevent Kendrick from performing church-sponsored field service-- door-to-door preaching-- alone with a minor. That gave Kendrick particular opportunity to molest Conti.

Based on these conclusions, the appeals court, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, reversed the $8.6 million punitive damage award against the national Watchtower Society, but affirmed damages for negligence awarded against the defendants for $2.8 million.

Court Issues Enforcement Orders To Assure Jehovah's Witnesses Access To Puerto Rico Urbanizations

In Watchtower Bible Tract Society of N.Y. Inc. v. Municipality of El Dorado, (D PR, Jan. 26, 2015), a Puerto Rico federal magistrate judge issued broad remedial orders in an attempt to force reluctant gated communities ("urbanizations") in Puerto Rico to comply with prior orders to give Jehovah's Witnesses access so they can engage in door-to-door proselytization. One community in El Dorado allowed Jehovah's Witnesses entry, but barred their knocking on residents' door.  Another community continued to deny entry to Jehovah's Witnesses.  The decision made clear that it is the responsibility of municipalities to ensure compliance by individual neighborhoods.  The court threatened to have the gates of the community forcibly opened if access was not granted.  The magistrate judge also recommended that the municipality be held in contempt and fined $5000.

Jehovah's Witness Title VII Claim Survives Summary Judgment Motion

In Shepherd v. Gannondale, (WD PA, Dec. 22, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendant, a Catholic residential care facility, in a suit by a former employee, a Jehovah's Witness, alleging religious discrimination.  Plaintiff Sharon Shepherd worked as a Fiscal Supervisor for defendant, Gannondale, until she was terminated or forced to resign.  Gannondale is a ministry of the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity which provided holistic and therapeutic care for young women placed by the court. It operated using the "Sanctuary Model of Trauma Informed Care" which involves "community meetings" which all clients and staff were required to attend. Shepherd stopped attending community meetings in the Fall of 2012 because she concluded they involved too much "anti-Christian content" for her to be a part of them.  She disagreed in general with the Sanctuary Model because it was not based on Biblical teachings.

The court concluded that Shepherd had stated a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on religion as well as a claim of failure to accommodate her desire to be excused from community meetings.  The court said in part:

Defendant appears to be invoking a sort of “esprit de corps” argument that has never been applied outside the context of the military and the police force....  No doubt every employer would argue that allowing even one employee to be excused from an organization-wide practice would undermine that practice as a whole and might encourage other employees to seek exemptions. Nevertheless, Title VII requires reasonable accommodation of employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs unless an employer demonstrates that such accommodation would subject it to an undue hardship..... Defendant’s argument would allow the undue hardship exception to swallow the rule of religious accommodation and it is rejected.

Suit Charges Jehovah's Witnesses With Covering Up Child Abuse

The Oregonian reports that yesterday a $10.5 million lawsuit was filed in state court in Oregon against Jehovah's Witness organizations claiming that they have a policy of covering up sexual abuse of minors by Jehovah's Witness leaders.  The suit was brought by a man and a woman, adults now, who claim they were molested as children by Daniel Castellanos, who held a position equivalent to an ordained minister of a congregation. Plaintiffs' attorney says that the Jehovah's Witness governing body does not disfellowship an alleged abuser unless he confesses or they have two eyewitnesses to the abuse. Even then the congregation is not told why the action occurred.

Abuse Victim Awarded $13.5 M In Suit Against Jehovah's Witness Watchtower Society

The San Diego Union Tribune reports that last Wednesday a California state trial court judge awarded compensatory and punitive damages totalling $13.5 million to 36-year old Jose Lopez who, in 1986 as a 7-year old child, was sexually molested by Jehovah's Witness church leader Gonzalo Campos. After the victim's mother reported the abuse the church decided Campos was repentant, and he rose through the ranks, was expelled for a few years after another victim came forward, but was then reinstated.  The judge had previously imposed sanctions on the church's governing body, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, for not producing documents, and it was precluded from presenting evidence in defense in the 6-day trial.

European Court Says Violence Against Jehovah's Witnesses Violates Human Rights Convention

In Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, (ECHR, Oct. 7, 2014), in a Chamber Judgment, the European Court of Human Rights held that numerous incidents of violence against Jehovah's Witnesses, even when carried out only by private individuals, violated Articles 3 (freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment) and 9 (freedom of conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the government's indifference and failure to protect those attacked.

... [T]he Court concludes that the relevant authorities were ineffective in preventing and stopping religiously motivated violence. Through the conduct of their agents, who either participated directly in the attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses or by their acquiescence and connivance into unlawful activities of private individuals, the Georgian authorities created a climate of impunity, which ultimately encouraged other attacks against Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the country. Furthermore, by an obvious unwillingness to ensure the prompt and fair prosecution and punishment of those responsible, the respondent Government failed to redress the violations, thereby neglecting the inherent preventive and deterrent effect in relation to future violations against Jehovah’s Witnesses.

... All of the above leads the Court to conclude that the Government simply declined to apply the law to protect the applicants. It therefore establishes that Article 3 of the Convention has been violated....

... [S]everal violent attacks took place with the direct participation of various public officials or with their connivance and acquiesence. As to the adequacy of the response, the applicants’ religious gatherings were violently disrupted on a large scale, their religious literature was confiscated and burnt, and their homes were ransacked. Having been treated in that way, the applicants were subsequently confronted with total indifference and a failure to act on the part of the authorities, who, on account of the applicants’ adherence to a religious community perceived as a threat to Christian Orthodoxy, took no action in respect of their complaints.... The authorities’ negligence opened the doors to widespread religious violence throughout Georgia against Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicants were thus led to fear that they would be subjected to renewed violence at each fresh manifestation of their faith.

... [T]hrough their involvement, connivance or at least acquiescence, the relevant authorities failed in their duty to take the necessary measures to ensure that Jehovah’s Witnesses were able to exercise their right to freedom of religion.... The Court thus concludes that the State’s failures in connection with the circumstances concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the practice of their religion, seen as a whole, resulted in a violation of Article 9 of the Convention...

Art. 3 violations were found as to 32 applicants and Art. 9 violations were found as to 88.  The court also issued a press release summarizing the decision. Chamber Judgments are appealable to the Grand Chamber.

EEOC Sues Over Food Market's Refusal To Accommodate Jehovah's Witness

The EEOC yesterday announced the filing of a lawsuit against the supermarket chain Food Lion for its refusal to accommodate the religious needs of a Jehovah's Witness minister and elder employed as a meat cutter in one of the food chain's North Carolina stores.  The company originally agreed to accommodate Victaurius Bailey's request not to work on Thursday nights or Sundays so that he could attend church services and religious meetings. However when Bailey was transfered to a different store, he was fired for refusing to work on Sundays.

9th Circuit: State Can Require Care Workers To Accompany Disabled Clients To Religious Services

In Williams v. State of California, (9th Cir., Aug. 19, 2014), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the district court's opinion in concluding that the rights of two residential care facilities and their employees were not infringed when, under state law, employees were required to personally accompany a developmentally disabled client to attend Jehovah’s Witness services. The court rejected the argument that this infringed free exercise rights and the establishment clause by requiring Catholic employees to violate their religious beliefs by attending non-Catholic religious services. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Czech Court Wipes Away 45 Year Old Convictions of 4 Jehovah's Witnesses

In the Czech Republic last Friday, a court in Pizen entered an order of judicial rehabilitation wiping away the 1969 convictions of four Jehovah's Witnesses who were fined for visiting people and speaking with them about the Bible.  At that time, the Communist regime in the country combated all churches. According to yesterday's Prague Post, Judge Iveta Zítková said that the rehabilitation gives "a sort of moral satisfaction" to the four who are now in their 60's and retired.

Jehovah's Witness Sues Former Employer Saying Requirements Violated Her Belief In Predetermination

Nexstar Broadcasting reports on a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania by Sharon Shepard, a Jehovah's Witness, who claims that the was fired on religious grounds by Gannondale, a residential care facility for young women in Erie (PA). Shepard, who was employed as a bookkeeper, claims she was required to attend meetings where she was supposed to work on growth and change. She says, however, that her religion believes in predetermination.

"Avoidable Consequences" Doctrine Prevents Recovery For Jehovah's Witness Death

In Braverman v. Granger, (MI App., Jan. 9, 2014), a Michigan appeals court held that the doctrine of "avoidable consequences" prevents recovery in a wrongful death medical malpractice suit brought by the personal representative of a deceased Jehovah's Witness woman who refused a blood transfusion that was needed to deal with complications from a kidney transplant.  The court rejected a test that would look to whether refusing a blood transfusion was subjectively reasonable in light of a person's religious beliefs, saying that this test would require the trier of fact  to decide either the reasonableness of a person's religion or of her decision to follow her religious beliefs in the face of death. The court held that instead "the proper inquiry is whether the blood transfusion was an objectively reasonable means to avoid or minimize damages following the person’s original injury...."

In a concurring opinion, Judge Boonstra added:

I write separately only to emphasize that our opinion should not be interpreted as reflective of any viewpoint regarding religion generally or any particular religious belief or expression. To the contrary, it is reflective of the spirit of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and its guarantee of every person’s right to freely exercise the religious beliefs and expressions of his or her choice, without governmental interference.

AP reports on the decision.

Belated Objections By Jehovah's Witness Juror Cause Mistrial

As reported by the Washington Post, belated religious objections by a juror caused a Prince Georges County, Maryland trial court last Thursday to declare a mistrial in the manslaughter trial of Kevon Neal.  Neal, who was being pursued for driving a stolen car, was charged with causing the death of a police officer who lost control of his police cruiser in the chase. After 3 days of testimony, alternate jurors were released and the jury began deliberations.  At 1:00 a.m. of the day deliberations were to resume, a juror sent the judge a not saying that because of her beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness, she could not "sit in judgment of another human being."  The juror has been charged with contempt of court and a hearing on that charge will be held Feb. 24. [Thanks to Steven Jamar via Religionlaw for the lead.]