Miami Archdiocese Asks Supreme Court to Hear Abuse Case
The Archdiocese of Miami wants the justices to review a decision by the Third District Court of Appeal that would allow the alleged victim of sexual abuse to pursue a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the archdiocese.
June 30, 2023 at 01:06 PM
3 minute read
In what it described as a "case of exceptional importance" for employers, the Archdiocese of Miami asked the Florida Supreme Court to take up a dispute involving allegations that a priest sexually abused a child.
The archdiocese wants the justices to review a decision by the Third District Court of Appeal that would allow the alleged victim to pursue a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against the archdiocese.
The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff, identified as John Doe 1, was sexually abused dozens of times between 1999 and 2001, when he was 7 to 9 years old, according to a March 22 decision by a three-judge panel of the South Florida appeals court. The case names as a defendant the archdiocese and not the priest.
"The complaint contains detailed allegations that the archdiocese knew about the priest's long history of child sexual abuse, going back at least as far as 1969 but concealed this information, continued to place the priest in positions with access to children and did nothing to prevent further abuse," said the decision, written by Judge Norma Lindsey and joined by Judges Thomas Logue and Bronwyn Miller.
The appeals court rejected part of the lawsuit alleging negligence by the archdiocese, citing a four-year statute of limitations on negligence claims. The lawsuit was filed in 2021, when the alleged victim was 29.
But the court overturned a circuit judge's ruling that dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. It pointed to the interplay of two laws, including a 2010 law that lifted certain time restrictions on cases involving sexual batteries on victims under age 16.
While the appeals court said the negligence claim was barred by a statute of limitations, the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress was not. It also said the case could be brought against an "institution," not just an individual.
In the brief filed Thursday at the Supreme Court, attorneys for the archdiocese argued that the March decision conflicted with a 2016 ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal and that such cases could only be filed against individual abusers and not employers.
The archdiocese was a defendant in the 2016 case, which was from Broward County and involved allegations that a child was abused by priests in the 1980s. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a dismissal of the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
In addition to arguing that a conflict exists between the appeals court rulings, attorneys for the archdiocese pointed in Thursday's brief to potential "far reaching implications" of the case.
"The case otherwise presents a case of exceptional importance because it establishes employer liability to claims that would otherwise be time barred," the brief said.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250