Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2166, 229 A.D.2d 159, 654 N.Y.S.2d 791 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer can be held liable for negligent retention and negligent supervision of an employee if it knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for injurious conduct, even if not vicariously liable, and such liability does not inherently violate First Amendment religious freedoms. However, negligent hiring claims fail if the employer had no reason to suspect misconduct at the time of hiring, as there is no common-law duty to investigate unless specific facts suggest a need.
Facts:
- Enrique Diaz Jimenez was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in Venezuela in 1977.
- In 1983, Jimenez came to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn with a letter of reference from the Archbishop of Merida, Venezuela.
- The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn assigned Jimenez to work in St. Leo’s Church.
- Between July 13, 1983, and August 31, 1989, Enrique Diaz Jimenez sexually abused the infant plaintiffs.
- Jimenez subsequently pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree based on this conduct.
- The infant plaintiffs and/or Jimenez himself made statements to other priests at St. Leo’s Church or Our Lady of Sorrows Church concerning Jimenez’s conduct.
Procedural Posture:
- The infant plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (appellant) and Enrique Diaz Jimenez (codefendant) alleging, among other things, negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision, clergy malpractice, and that the appellant created a 'climate and custom' of indifference to sexual abuse.
- The Supreme Court (trial court/court of first instance) granted those branches of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn’s cross motion which were to dismiss the first and second causes of action (vicarious liability claims) because Jimenez's conduct did not fall within the scope of his employment.
- The Supreme Court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ third cause of action (sounding in clergy malpractice) and their tenth cause of action (alleging a 'climate and custom' of indifference to sexual abuse).
- However, the Supreme Court denied those branches of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn’s cross motion which were to dismiss the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action (alleging failure to screen/determine Jimenez’s fitness for the priesthood, failure to establish proper guidelines, and negligence in hiring him), as well as the fourth, ninth, and eleventh causes of action (sounding in negligent supervision and retention, and a derivative claim).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Roman Catholic Diocese have a cause of action for negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision of a priest accused of sexual abuse, given First Amendment concerns regarding entanglement in religious affairs?
Opinions:
Majority - Goldstein, J.
Yes, the plaintiffs have stated causes of action for negligent retention and negligent supervision, but not for negligent hiring. The court affirmed that an employer, such as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, can be liable for an employee's torts under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, even if not vicariously liable under respondeat superior, provided the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the injurious conduct. For negligent hiring, the court found no common-law duty to institute specific procedures for hiring unless the employer knows of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate. Since Jimenez arrived with a letter of reference that gave the Diocese no reason to believe there was a problem, the Diocese could not be charged with negligence for failing to investigate further. Furthermore, claims regarding the Diocese's failure to screen Jimenez for the priesthood were dismissed because he was ordained in Venezuela, and imposing liability for conferring religious status would raise serious First Amendment concerns regarding excessive entanglement in religious affairs. However, for negligent retention and supervision, the court found that allegations in the bill of particulars—that the infant plaintiffs and/or Jimenez himself made statements to other priests giving notice of Jimenez’s conduct—were sufficient to potentially establish such causes of action. The court clarified that imposing liability for negligent retention or supervision in this context would not violate constitutional guarantees of free exercise of religion or separation of church and State. It reasoned that general tort laws apply to religious entities, as the First Amendment prohibits regulation of religious beliefs but not conduct. There was no indication that the level of supervision or the retention of Jimenez was dictated by any religious doctrine, and religious organizations are not absolutely immune from tort liability for conduct subject to general societal regulation.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the applicability of general tort principles to religious organizations, particularly concerning claims of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. It establishes a critical distinction: while ordination itself and associated screening processes may be protected by the First Amendment, the subsequent employment and supervision of religious personnel are subject to secular legal standards. The decision provides a pathway for plaintiffs to pursue claims against religious institutions when there is evidence that the institution had actual or constructive notice of an employee's dangerous propensities, reinforcing the principle that religious entities, like all employers, have a duty to prevent harm. However, it also protects religious organizations from liability for negligent hiring when no red flags existed at the time of initial employment, balancing victim redress with religious freedom concerns.
