In a case reported in todays Irish Examiner, a judge in Oregon has ruled that the Holy See (Vatican) is not the employer of molester priests. The decision by US District Court Judge Michael Mosman ends a six-year question in the decade-old case and could shield the Vatican from possible monetary damages. The original lawsuit was filed in 2002 by a Seattle-area man, who said the Rev Andrew Ronan repeatedly molested him in the late 1960s. The plaintiffs tried to show that priests are employees of the Vatican, making it liable for their actions.
Mosman made a previous decision strictly on legal theory and determined that if all the facts in the case were true, then the Vatican would indeed by Ronan’s employer. But yesterday, he said: "There are no facts to create a true employment relationship between Ronan and the Holy See." The plaintiff argued that Ronan’s fealty to the Pope, the Vatican’s ability to promote priests and its laicization process, all pointed to it employing priests. However this case, whilst interesting to read, is a different interpretation of the legislation than the ruling (reported in a previous post) where it was highlighted that a Bishop was held vicariously liable for the actions of a priest. This case of JGE -v- Trustees of Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (EWCA Civ 938) was interpreted that although not strictly and employer/employee relationship, the relationship, although different in a number of ways, was sufficiently close to that of an employer/employee to render the Bishop vicariously liable for the actions of the priest. The differing interpretations between jurisdictions is nothing new but is something employers should be aware of before relying on legislation and case precedent
