Suing the church for failure to supervise an employee

[excathedra]

In Missouri court, a choir director claims minister raped her

Thu Apr 21, 6:17 PM ET

By Emanuella Grinberg, Court TV

quote:

Supervisors at the Campbell United Methodist Church in Missouri had allegedly received complaints about Minister David Finestead before the choir director told them about the inappropriate comments he was directing at her.

But when those complaints went unheeded and Teresa Norris decided to resign in March 1998, she claims Finestead punched, raped and sodomized her in her parish office.

A jury finally began hearing Norris' claims this week in Greene County 31st Circuit Court, more than six years after she filed suit against Finestead and the Missouri West Conference of the United Methodist Church 1999 over his alleged behavior.

Finestead arrived in Campbell in 1995 after he was transferred from the Central Methodist United Church in Kansas City, Mo.

In his opening statements, Norris' lawyer, Michael Fletcher, plotted dates of other alleged complaints on a chart going back to 1995, suggesting Finestead had been transferred as a result of them, according to the Springfield News-Leader.

The church's attorney, Patrick McGrath, told jurors that the complaints were all considered to have been resolved and had no connection to the transfer.

"This is not a case of a sexual predator being moved from one church to another," said McGrath, adding that the church took immediate action after Norris reported the alleged rape more than two months later, the paper reported.

Finestead was removed from the Campbell United Methodist Church after the complaint and his minister credentials have been suspended.

On more than one occasion before the alleged attack, Norris says Finestead attempted to engage her in conversations regarding "female problems" and her ability to "lose weight in all the right places."

She claims he would often subject her to "prolonged gazing and staring at her breasts and other portions of her anatomy."

The plaintiff also described an "uninvited and unwanted neck rub in which Finestead moved his hands down her chest toward her breasts."

The suit alleges the defendant received similar written and verbal complaints from other female parish staff members before the March 25, 1998, assault on Norris. Several of those women are expected to testify.

McGrath addressed each letter and verbal complaint in his openings and said none of them suggested Finestead was a rapist, the Springfield News-Leader reported.

No one ever reported the incidents to police because they were ashamed, says Fletcher, and Finestead was never criminally charged, which is one reason he was dropped from the suit in March 2005.

Instead, Norris is now suing the church for unspecified damages for failure to supervise an employee and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

"We're going after the church for not doing anything, they could have prevented this," Fletcher told Courttv.com. "Finestead was uncontrollable, and the only one who could have controlled him was the church, his boss."

Fletcher says his client underwent extensive psychological treatment and even attempted suicide since the alleged incidents.

The suit contends the plaintiffs "ratified" Finestead's behavior by allowing him to continue working "after the creation of a hostile work environment" to the point where members of the staff parish were told their superiors "would not tolerate any complaints against Finestead and that Finestead had the full support" of the church hierarchy, according to the suit.

Lawyers for the defendants attempted to claim immunity from the intentional failure to supervise clergy allegation through the Doctrine of Church Autonomy in the U.S. Constitution.

In their response to the complaint, they also wrote that Norris failed to show that the church's sole intention through its conduct was to cause emotional distress to the plaintiff, and asked to dismiss her claims.

Norris' husband, Sid, is also a plaintiff in the suit, holding the church accountable for "the loss of companionship, society, comfort, assistance, family support, economic support and consortium of his wife" as a result of the defendant's conduct.

"Finestead was uncontrollable, and the only one who could have controlled him was the church, his boss."

when catholics took legal action against pedophiles in boston (for instance) and the TWI couple and then the lady filed suit, did they sue "the church" along with the individuals? is that how it's typically done?

[johniam]

The guy himself should be held accountable for his own behavior IMO. I can't see the church even knowing anything about it since nobody came forward. Looks like the Norris's are trying to get any kind of justice they can.

quote:

Norris' husband, Sid, is also a plaintiff in the suit, holding the church accountable for "the loss of companionship, society, comfort, assistance, family support, economic support and consortium of his wife" as a result of the defendant's conduct.

This part reminds me of an episode of 'LA Law' where a guy sued the catholic church because the priest got sick of absolving his wife for something she kept doing over and over again so this priest finally wouldn't absolve her and she thought she was going to hell and wouldn't have sex with her husband and so the husband claimed he "wanted his wife back". Seemed kind of hokey on the show and it still seems that way, but it sounds like the Norris's are due something.

If those other female parish workers testify she should get something.

[markomalley]

((deleted due to being an ignorant and uncharitable response. My apologies to all participants of this thread for my offense. I sincerely hope that all can forgive me for my arrogance))

Edited April 23, 2005 by markomalley

[mstar1]

I dont know if it is typically done this way, but the way the story is laid out the church (Board, Supervisors, or whatever the Methodists have) definitely sounds negligent, especially since there were previous complaints.

The Board, supervisors or whatever are in place to guard against this sort of thing. There were obvious warning signs, it will be interesting to see how the board 'resolved' the previous complaints or if they just ignorred them (which it appears that they did).