FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2 (Originally published in 2021)
`
`American Law Reports | The ALR databases are made current by the weekly addition of
`relevant new cases.
`
`ALR7th
`Danielle Bolong, J.D., LL.M.
`
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy Member's Employment to
`Support Theory of Vicarious Liability or Respondeat Superior Under State Law
`
`In recent years, there has been a spate of lawsuits against religious societies arising
`from allegations of sexual abuse by clergy members. Plaintiffs seek to obtain redress
`under imputed negligence, on theories of respondeat superior and agency, and direct
`negligence, on theories of negligent supervision and negligent hiring. This article
`collects and discusses cases that have addressed whether sexual misconduct falls within
`the scope of a clergy member's employment to support theory of vicarious liability or
`respondeat superior under state law.
`
`For cases on this issue after the date of this article, use this query: (((archbishop
`archdiocese bishop cardinal church clergy cleric deacon diocese father imam minister
`monk mosque nun parish! pastor priest rabbi rector reverend synagogue temple
`vicar) /45 ((sex! /3 assault!) (sex! /3 abuse!) (sex! /3 conduct) (sex! /3 misconduct)
`(sex! /3 battery) (sex! /3 harass!) (sex! /3 contact) (sex! /3 intercourse) (sex! /3
`exploit!) (sex! /3 violat!) (sex! /3 act) (sex! /3 offense) (oral /3 sex) (sex! /3
`relation!) ("sex with") fellatio groom! indecen! molest! rape raped raping sodom!) /35
`(scope /5 employment) (scope /5 duties)) (priest /20 (sex! /3 relation!) /100 (scope /3
`employment)) % ATLEAST15(police) & DA(aft 10/05/2021) % ATLEAST5(sheriff)
`% ATLEAST10(physician) % ATLEAST5(nurse))
`
`Suggestions for A.L.R.? Email an A.L.R. Attorney Editor.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Article Outline
`Research References
`Table of Cases, Laws, and Rules
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`ARTICLE OUTLINE
`
`
`
`
`
`I Preliminary Matters
`
`§ 1 Scope
`
`§ 2 Background and summary
`
`§ 3 Practice notes
`
`II Categorical Dismissal of Respondeat Superior Claims
`
`
` A Stage of Litigation Determined Dismissal Proper Because Outside
`Scope of Employment
` § 4 Motion to dismiss—No cause of action under doctrine of
`respondeat superior
` § 5 Motion to dismiss—Lack of personal jurisdiction because not
`within scope of employment
`§ 6 Motion to strike
`
`§ 7 Demurrer
`
`§ 8 Motion for summary judgment
`
`§ 9 Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict
`
`§ 10 Motion to dismiss punitive damages
`
`
` B Other Grounds for Outright Dismissal of Respondeat Superior Claims
`
`§ 11 Statute of limitations
`
`§ 12 Settlement of the parties
`
`§ 13 Clergy member not employee
`
`§ 14 Dismissal of underlying claim against clergy member
`
`III Approaches in Recognizing Viability of Respondeat Superior Claims
`
` A Recognition of Respondeat Superior Claim as Mistaken Attempt to
`Perform Authorized Job Responsibilities
`§ 15 Motion to dismiss
`
`§ 16 Demurrer
`
`§ 17 Motion for summary judgment
`
`B Recognition of Risks Relating to Religious Ministry
`
`§ 18 Motion to dismiss
`
`§ 19 Motion to strike
`
`
` C Fact-Intensive Analysis of Causal Nexus or Close Connection
`Between Specific Circumstances of Tort and Authority Within Which
`Employer Has Clothed Alleged Offender
` § 20 Intent to further interests of religious institution—Generally
`
`
` § 21 Intent to further interests of religious institution—Claim
`supportable
` § 22 Intent to further interests of religious institution—Claim
`dismissed
`
`
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 23 Location of sexual misconduct—Claim supportable
`
`§ 24 Location of sexual misconduct—Claim dismissed
`
`
` § 25 Knowledge or ratification of religious institution—Claim
`supportable
` § 26 Knowledge or ratification of religious institution—Claim
`dismissed
`IV Limited Review of Viability of Respondeat Superior Claims
`
`A Remedy Sought for Dismissal of Respondeat Superior Claims
`
`
` § 27 Motion to dismiss—Cause of action under doctrine of
`respondeat superior not barred by First Amendment
` § 28 Motion to dismiss—Within scope of employment for
`purposes of personal jurisdiction
`§ 29 Motion for summary judgment
`
`§ 30 Motion for punitive damages
`
`
` B Determination of Coverage Under Insurance Policy of Religious
`Institution
` § 31 Not covered by insurance policy because outside scope of
`employment
` § 32 Covered by insurance policy even if outside scope of
`employment
`C Resolution Not Necessary
`
`§ 33 Dicta—Sexual misconduct is outside scope of employment
`
`
` § 34 Dicta—Sexual misconduct is not necessarily outside scope
`of employment
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`I. Preliminary Matters
`
`§ 1. Scope
`
`This article 1 collects and discusses cases that have addressed whether sexual
`misconduct falls within the scope of a clergy member's employment to support theory of
`vicarious liability or respondeat superior under state law. It does not include cases where
`the court only noted, without further discussion, that plaintiff clergy member's claims
`were not based on a theory of respondeat superior, 2 or simply disposed of clergy's
`motion without reference to the claims against the religious society. 3
`
`For purposes of this article, the term "clergy" includes all those who are ordained, or
`otherwise licensed to perform, some office of ministry or religious society, including
`members of religious orders, 4 but does not include lay persons who fulfill specialized
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`types of ministries, such as the coordinator for the shelter program, 5 school teachers, 6
`volunteers, 7 youth leader in boy scouts group operated by the church, 8 youth
`minister, 9 church employee, 10 officer and trustee of church, 11 director of nonprofit
`Christian corporation, 12 day care center employees operating in church premises, 13
`and seminarian. 14
`
`Note
`Some opinions discussed in this article may be restricted by court rule as to publication
`and citation in briefs; readers are cautioned to check each case for restrictions. A number
`of jurisdictions may have rules, regulations, constitutional provisions, or legislative
`enactments directly bearing upon this subject. These provisions are discussed herein only
`to the extent and in the form that they are reflected in the court opinions that fall within
`the scope of this article. The reader is consequently advised to consult the appropriate
`statutory or regulatory compilations to ascertain the current status of all statutes discussed.
`
`§ 2. Background and summary
`
`Liability has been asserted against churches and religious societies for the sexual
`misconduct of their clergy under imputed negligence, on theories of respondeat superior
`and agency, and direct negligence, on theories of negligent supervision and negligent
`hiring. 15 This article focuses on the doctrine of respondeat superior, that is, the doctrine
`holding that an employer or principal liable for the employee's or agent's wrongful acts
`committed within the scope of the employment or agency.
`
`A considerable number of courts have dismissed respondeat superior claims in a
`conclusory manner, that is that sexual misconduct by members of the clergy is outside
`the scope of their employment and therefore, the religious institution they are part of
`cannot be held liable (§§ 4 to 10). Courts have likewise dismissed respondeat superior
`claims because it is time-barred (§ 11), the parties have settled (§ 12), the clergy member
`is not an employee (§ 13) or the underlying claims against the clergy member has
`been dismissed (§ 14). Similarly, courts, in dicta, have perfunctorily stated that sexual
`misconduct is outside the scope of employment of clergy members (§ 33).
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`There are a growing number of courts, however, that recognize the viability of vicarious
`liability claims in cases, especially where tortfeasors have taken advantage of the
`authority religious institutions have conferred upon them to cultivate and then to
`violate their victims' trust. 16 First, courts have recognized that it could be reasonably
`determined that the sexual misconduct stemmed from the clergy member's authorized
`job responsibilities and therefore did not reject, in a motion to dismiss, the respondeat
`superior theory (§§ 15 to 17). Second, sexual misconduct within religious societies is
`foreseeable in view of studies on increasing religious misconduct (§§ 18 to 19). Finally,
`courts have performed fact-intensive analysis of the causal nexus or close connection
`between specific circumstances of tort and the authority within which an employer has
`clothed an alleged offender, focusing on the intent of the clergy member to further the
`interests of the religious institution, location of the sexual misconduct, and knowledge
`or ratification of the religious institution (§§ 20 to 26).
`
`These approaches are viewed considering the particular stage of litigation the issue is
`raised. For example, in A.H. by next friends C.H. v. Church of God in Christ, Inc.,
`297 Va. 604, 831 S.E.2d 460 (2019), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that allegations
`in complaint by minor church attendee were sufficient to allege, at demurrer stage,
`respondeat superior liability on part of local church and national denomination, after
`attendee was sexually abused by church deacon, where complaint alleged that deacon
`was an employee or agent of church defendants and that abuse was committed in course
`of deacon performing duties that were in scope of deacon of performing duties that were
`in scope of his employment as deacon, youth leader, or activity coach.
`
`There are also cases, which recognize the viability of respondeat superior claims
`albeit in a limited setting, such as, in dicta (§ 34), that it is not barred by the First
`Amendment claim of the religious institution (§§ 27, 29), and that it is feasible for
`purposes of personal jurisdiction (§ 28) and claim for punitive damages (§ 30). As
`religious institutions tend to have insurance coverage, there have also been cases on
`coverage even if the abuse is deemed outside the scope of clergy member's employment
`(§§ 31 to 32).
`
`§ 3. Practice notes
`
`The theory of respondeat superior provides victims of sexual abuse by clergy members
`an additional cause of action against the religious society employer. While a majority
`of courts have dismissed respondeat superior claims rather perfunctorily, 17 there are
`increasing number of cases recognizing the viability of the claim. In these instances, it
`is especially important to look at what stage the litigation is. The requirements are less
`stringent specially when it is a motion to dismiss, 18 a motion to strike, 19 demurrer, 20
`or even a motion for summary judgment. 21
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`The law of the state where suit is filed regarding respondeat superior plays a huge part in
`the determination of the viability of a claim. For example, under Oregon law, an alleged
`victim's allegations in the complaint that the priest engaged in conduct referred to as
`grooming within course and scope of employment, and that such grooming resulted
`in sexual abuse, are sufficient to state claim against archdiocese and archbishop for
`sexual battery of child and intentional infliction of emotional distress under theory of
`respondeat superior liability. 22 To the contrary, in Vermont, a church is not subject
`to vicarious liability for tortious acts of its pastor, including sexual misconduct. 23 In
`jurisdictions which have previously perfunctorily denied respondeat superior claims, 24
`there is an emphasis on the particular stage of litigation, that is for example, it is only
`a motion to dismiss and there is sufficient allegation that minister's tortious actions in
`engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with parishioner when parishioner was minor
`were closely connected to minister's authorized duties as to state claim for vicarious
`liability against church under theory of respondeat superior. 25
`
`II. Categorical Dismissal of Respondeat Superior Claims
`
`A. Stage of Litigation Determined Dismissal Proper Because Outside Scope of
`Employment
`
`§ 4. Motion to dismiss—No cause of action under doctrine of respondeat superior
`
`[Cumulative Supplement]
`
`The courts in the following cases outrightly rejected, in a motion to dismiss, the
`respondeat superior theory because a clergy member's sexual misconduct is deemed
`outside the scope of employment of clergy member and there was no allegation to the
`contrary.
`
`Colorado
`
`Destefano v. Grabrian, 763 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1988) The supreme court upheld the
`dismissal of claim against church under the doctrine of respondeat superior arising from
`the alleged sexual misconduct of a member of the clergy.
`
`A former couple brought claims against diocese and priest for injuries incurred when
`the priest allegedly engaged in consensual sexual conduct with the wife in the course
`of marital counseling. The divorced husband alleged that that priest engaged in actions
`during marriage counseling which the priest knew or should have known would lead
`to additional marital problems. The divorced wife, originally defendant in action, but
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`against whom husband dismissed claims, filed cross-claims against priest and diocese.
`The couple claimed liability on the part of the diocese under respondeat superior.
`
`The supreme court cited the rule that an employer may be held responsible for tortious
`conduct by an employee only if the tort is committed within the course and scope of
`employment, and that such is the case only where the employee is engaged in work
`assigned by employer or which is customary within the business in which the employee
`is engaged. The court took notice that a priest's violation of the vow of celibacy
`is contrary to the instructions and doctrines of the Catholic church, and that sexual
`intercourse by a priest with a parishioner is not part of a priest's duties or customary
`within the business of the church.
`
`Connecticut
`
`Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 268 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Conn.
`2003) (applying Connecticut law) The court dismissed without prejudice to refiling
`claims of respondeat superior liability.
`
`A former parishioner brought action against priest, parish, and diocese, seeking
`compensation for alleged sexual abuse by the priest. On motions of the parish and
`diocese to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the district court held that the complaint
`was insufficient to invoke respondeat superior liability for the parish or diocese.
`
`Under Connecticut law, a complaint alleging that priest who allegedly sexually abused
`former parishioner was acting within the scope of duties and employment as a priest
`for the diocese and/or the parish, and in furtherance of their business purpose, was
`insufficient to invoke the respondeat superior liability for the parish or diocese, absent
`allegation of any facts to indicate that the nature of the alleged sexual acts by the priest
`somehow furthered the church's business. The court pointed out that even at the pleading
`stage, Connecticut courts have dismissed claims of respondeat superior in cases of
`sexual abuse by a priest, because as a matter of law, those acts did not further the interests
`of the church or diocese.
`
`Florida
`
`Elders v. United Methodist Church, 793 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) The court
`of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the respondeat superior claims.
`
`A church member brought a negligence action against the local church, church
`conference, and district superintendents, alleging improper sexual conduct by a pastor.
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`The circuit court dismissed all claims and the member appealed. The appellate court
`denied the appeal and said that that as a matter of common sense, having sexual relations
`with a counselee is not part or in furtherance of the job responsibilities of a pastor.
`
`Illinois
`
`Amato v. Greenquist, 287 Ill. App. 3d 921, 223 Ill. Dec. 261, 679 N.E.2d 446 (1st Dist.
`1997) Court dismissed claim against church finding that plaintiff could not establish
`church defendants' liability under respondeat superior theory for pastor's actions in
`counselling plaintiff while secretly having affair with plaintiff's wife, as complaint failed
`to allege that pastor's actions in deceiving and otherwise counselling plaintiff were for
`anything other than pastor's own benefit.
`
`Missouri
`
`Ohl-Marsters v. Johnston, 2009 WL 3526230 (E.D. Mo. 2009), rev'd in part on other
`grounds,
`641 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2011) (applying Missouri law) The district court
`dismissed plaintiff's alternative claims of negligent entrustment, breach of fiduciary
`duty and respondeat superior against an archdiocese for sexual abuse by a priest while
`plaintiff was a minor. The court noted that what man was asserting was somewhat
`unclear. To the extent plaintiff was pleading agency liability under the respondeat
`superior doctrine, the court noted that in Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo.
`1997), the Supreme Court of Missouri refused to recognize such a claim in a clergy
`sexual abuse case because sexual misconduct is not within the scope of employment of
`a priest. The district court noted that the decision is binding.
`
`Doe HL v. James, 2006 WL 6677124 (E.D. Mo. 2006) (applying Missouri law) The
`court dismissed the child sexual abuse and/or battery claims against the archdiocese and
`archbishop.
`
`Plaintiff sued priest, archdiocese, and archbishop for sexual abuse by priest and assistant
`counselor under the direct supervision, control, and authority of the archdiocese,
`archbishop, and school. In dismissing the case, the court held that under the doctrine of
`respondeat superior, an employer is responsible for the negligent acts of its employee if
`the employee's tortious acts were done within the scope of employment duties. The court
`pointed out that the Missouri Supreme Court definitively held in Gibson v. Brewer,
`952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. 1997), that intentional sexual misconduct and intentional infliction
`of emotional distress are not within the scope of employment of a priest, and are in fact
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`forbidden. Therefore, plaintiff cannot allege that the archdiocese and archbishop were
`liable for childhood sexual abuse or battery based on a theory of respondeat superior.
`
`Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. 1997) The supreme court affirmed the
`dismissal of the respondeat superior claims.
`
`Parents of a minor and minor sued diocese and priest for claims arising from the priest's
`alleged sexual misconduct. Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs claimed
`that the priest was acting in the course and scope of authority given by diocese when
`committing the acts alleged. In Missouri, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a
`principal is liable for its agent's acts that are (1) within the scope of employment and
`(2) done as a means or for the purpose of doing the work assigned by the principal.
`The court pointed out that even the authorities cited by the plaintiffs acknowledge that
`intentional sexual misconduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress are not
`within the scope of employment of a priest, and are in fact forbidden, thus do not support
`liability of diocese on theory of respondeat superior or agency.
`
`Gray v. Ward, 950 S.W.2d 232 (Mo. 1997) The supreme court affirmed the dismissal
`of the respondeat superior claims against the diocese over the sexual abuse committed
`by a priest to then 14-year-old parishioner who confessed about sexual desires and
`whom priest then induced to a sexual relationship. The court of appeals previously
`held that the sexual encounters resulted from private and personal desires, and not as
`part of any counseling program endorsed by the diocese. The acts of the priest were
`not intended to further the church's business and therefore, the priest was not acting
`within the scope of employment when engaging in sexual relations with the plaintiff.
`Instead, the court of appeals characterized it as assaultive conduct, outside the scope of
`the priest's employment and cannot serve as a basis for holding the diocese vicariously
`liable. On appeal, the supreme court stated that intentional sexual activity and intentional
`infliction of emotional distress do not fall within the scope of employment of a priest,
`and the diocese cannot be held liable under an agency theory.
`
`New York
`
`Bouchard v. New York Archdiocese, 2006 WL 1375232 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) (applying
`New York law) The court dismissed the battery charge against the church.
`
`Parishioner claimed that while discussing past history of sexual abuse with priest,
`while inside the church, priest recommended a therapy which priest claimed has healed
`various women around the world from sexual trauma. While at church, priest then
`began touching parishioner's body on the pretext of helping parishioner. Priest then went
`to parishioner's apartment and performed another technique which involved inserting
`priest's fingers inside parishioner's vagina and timing her orgasm. Parishioner thus sued
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`the church for various claims, including battery. The church sought dismissal citing lack
`of allegations that it personally committed an assault or battery. If parishioner seeks to
`hold the church vicariously liable, the church argued that the misconduct was clearly
`outside the scope of employment as a priest, and was unrelated to the furtherance of
`the church's business.
`
`The court agreed with the church and noted parishioner's concession in the complaint
`that the priest's conduct was not part of any religious or faith-based action that priest
`was giving, or that parishioner sought.
`
`Liddie v. Collymore, 44 Misc. 3d 1216(A), 997 N.Y.S.2d 99 (Sup 2014) The court
`granted the unopposed motion to dismiss by church arising from rape by pastor.
`
`In the main action, plaintiff alleged sexual assault by pastor, who was then arrested,
`indicted, and charged with rape in the third degree. Pastor pled guilty to the reduced
`charge of disorderly conduct, a violation, in full satisfaction of the indictment and the
`matter was dismissed. The church then filed a motion to dismiss of the civil suit, arguing
`that the sexual assault was not in furtherance of defendant's business and are clear
`departures from the scope of pastor's employment and not reasonably foreseeable. The
`church also argued that it did not have a relationship with erring pastor that could give
`rise to vicarious liability. The court gave credence to the arguments and found that
`plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against the church.
`
`O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 31 Misc. 3d 1219(A), 927 N.Y.S.2d
`818 (Sup 2011), order summarily aff'd, 98 A.D.3d 485, 949 N.Y.S.2d 447 (2d Dep't
`2012) The court dismissed what it believed was a suit for common-law battery against
`defendant priest, and liability on the part of defendants diocese and church pursuant to
`the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court pointed out that neither defendants nor
`plaintiff specifically addressed the cause of action. Nevertheless, the court held that as
`to defendant diocese, the doctrine was not applicable absent an employment or agency
`relationship between the diocese and priest. In any event, as to both defendants diocese
`and church, the court concluded that based on clear authority, sexual assault was not
`within the scope of defendant priest's authority.
`
`Vione v. Tewell, 12 Misc. 3d 973, 820 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Sup 2006) The court
`dismissed parishioner's action against church stemming from former minister's affair
`with parishioner's wife while acting as couple's marriage counselor. The court held that
`minister's affair with parishioner's wife while acting as couple's marriage counselor was
`outside scope of duties for church, and thus church could not be held vicariously liable
`for minister's breach of fiduciary duty.
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`Jones by Jones v. Trane, 153 Misc. 2d 822, 591 N.Y.S.2d 927 (Sup 1992) The court
`granted the motion to dismiss claim against church.
`
`Mother, individually and on behalf of son, brought actions against priest and church
`for damages arising out of priest's alleged molestation of son. On motion to dismiss,
`the court held that church was not vicariously liable for priest's intentional sexual
`misconduct. The court noted that no New York case has been cited in which an employer
`has been held vicariously liable for intentional sexual misconduct by an employee and
`the contrary was reached in a case relating to a hospital.
`
`Texas
`
`Doe I v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Galveston-Houston, 2006 WL 8446968 (S.D.
`Tex. 2006) (applying Texas law) The court dismissed the claims for assault, intentional
`infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy against the
`archdiocese defendants on failure to state a claim.
`
`Plaintiffs sued an archdiocese, a seminarian training to be a priest, a bishop of the
`diocese, a monsignor of the parish, and a cardinal, alleging that when they were
`children, the seminarian used his position as a clergy member assigned to their church
`to sexually assault them. The court concluded that the plaintiffs have not alleged a basis
`to impose vicarious liability against the archdiocese Defendants for the seminarian's
`intentional torts or to impose liability for breach of fiduciary duty. The court explained
`that an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's intentional torts, unless the
`employee commits the intentional tort (1) within the scope of his employment, (2) in
`furtherance of the employer's business, and (3) to accomplish the object for which the
`employer hired the employee. The court cited the Fifth Circuit ruling in Tichenor v.
`Roman Catholic Church of Archdiocese of New Orleans, 32 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 1994),
`which rejected a claim that sexual abuse was within the scope of a priest's employment.
`Although that case involved Louisiana law, the court noted that the same result applied
`under the Texas law governing vicarious liability of an employer for an employee's
`intentional torts. The court concluded that the seminarian's intentional torts cannot be
`imputed to the archdiocese defendants because conduct was not, as a matter of law,
`related to his duties as a priest and did not further the interests of employer.
`
`CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT
`
`Cases:
`
`WESTLAW
` © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 05/31/2024 07:13 PMFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2025 11:04 PM
`Whether Sexual Misconduct Falls Within Scope of Clergy..., 68 A.L.R.7th Art. 2...
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 602601/2024INDEX NO. 159752/2024
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/31/2024RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2025
`
`Under New York law, sexual abuse claimants could not maintain negligence claims
`based on vicarious liability theories against Chapter 11 debtor, a Roman Catholic
`diocese, alleging that priest, teacher, or other employee of debtor caused their injury, as
`sexual assault was not in furtherance of an employer's business. In re Roman Catholic
`Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, 651 B.R. 146 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 2023).
`
`[Top of Section]
`
`[END OF SUPPLEMENT]
`
`§ 5. Motion to dismiss—Lack of personal jurisdiction because not within scope of
`employment
`
`The courts in the following cases outrightly rejected, in a motion to dismiss, the
`respondeat superior theory because there was lack of personal jurisdiction over the
`religious institution arising from the alleged sexual misconduct of clergy member.
`
`Delaware
`
`Elliott v. The Marist Bros. of the Schools, Inc., 675 F. Supp. 2d 454 (D. Del. 2009)
`(applying Delaware law) The court granted the motion to dismiss parishioner's action
`against archdiocese and church, stemming from alleged childhood sexual abuse by
`priest, which originated in and mostly occurred in New York. The court held that
`parishioner failed to aver that acts at issue occurred within scope of priest's employment
`in Delaware and that archdiocese and church directed acts, as required for court's
`exercise of personal jurisdiction over parties under Delaware long-arm statute. The court
`added that there were no allegations that parties knew of, directed, or authorized priest's
`travel to and/or through Delaware.
`
`Tell v. Roman Catholic Bishops of Diocese of Allentown, 2010 WL 1691199
`(Del. Super. Ct. 2010) The court, in deciding the motion to dismiss the vicarious
`liability claims against the church and the archbishop for lack of personal jurisdiction,
`enumera