Employers Not Liable for Abuse, Courts Say

Va. Rulings Concern Lawsuits Filed Years Later by Adults Allegedly Victimized as Children

Two Virginia Circuit Court judges have ruled that victims of child sexual abuse cannot sue the employers of their abusers when the victims file civil lawsuits years later as adults.

The June 8 rulings came in two separate cases in Richmond and Norfolk and were victories for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond, a defendant in both lawsuits.

Practically speaking, the rulings mean that churches, schools, corporations and other institutions cannot be held financially liable for abuse by an employee when a victim seeks damages years later. The judges cited a 1994 state constitutional amendment in issuing their opinions, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.

"Unless the individual perpetrator has significant assets, [abuse victims] have no realistic expectation of being compensated," said James C. Lewis, an attorney for the plaintiff in the Norfolk case.

The judges' decisions, which coincidentally came on the same day, arose from unusual language in the 1994 constitutional amendment that extended the time during which child abuse victims can file lawsuits.

For years, Virginia's personal injury law allowed people to file a lawsuit only within two years of an incident. The same standard was used in childhood sexual abuse cases. For minors who had suffered sexual abuse, the two-year clock began ticking when the victim turned 18.

Recognizing that many victims of child sexual abuse repress those experiences and recall them later, the Virginia legislature enacted a 1991 law that allowed adults to file suit within two years of becoming aware of their abuse through the diagnosis of a mental health professional.

The Virginia Supreme Court, however, struck down that law, calling it an unconstitutional extension of the time period for filing civil damage lawsuits.

The legislature countered with the 1994 constitutional amendment permitting such extensions. However, the amendment stated that such lawsuits could be filed only against a "natural person."

Richmond Circuit Court Judge Walter W. Stout III and Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Joseph A. Leafe both concluded that this phrase means an individual human being, or the actual perpetrator of the abuse, and not corporate entities, according to attorneys in both cases.

"The resounding effect this could have, if it's allowed to stand, is that the church can never be held liable in these cases," said Edward L. Weiner, attorney for the plaintiff in the Richmond case.

William F. Etherington, who represented the Catholic diocese in that case, said the ruling was fair and noted that "the constitutional amendment uses the phrase 'natural person' twice," signaling that legislators "meant to make a distinction between corporations and individuals."