A New York judge rules that religious organizations are subject to secular negligence laws regarding the supervision of school employees.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
A New York trial court denied a motion by the Archdiocese of New York to dismiss a lawsuit filed under the Child Victims Act. The plaintiff, John Doe XXV, alleges he was sexually abused by a school janitor during the 1970s while attending Our Lady of Mount Carmel School. The Archdiocese argued that First Amendment protections shielded it from liability and that it lacked an employer relationship with the parish staff. The court found that neutral legal principles allow for claims of negligent hiring and supervision against religious entities. Evidence in the record indicates that several reports of the staff member’s conduct were made to school officials and dismissed. The case will now proceed to a jury trial to determine the extent of the Archdiocese’s control and notice of the abuse.
Case Info
Case Caption: Doe XXV v. Archdiocese of N.Y., Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, and Our Lady of Mount Carmel School
Date: January 21, 2026
Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Trial Court)
Index Number: 950721/2020
Decision Link: 2026 NY Slip Op 30269(U)
A New York Supreme Court (in New York, trial courts are called Supreme Courts and this can be confusing) rejected an attempt by the Archdiocese of New York to dismiss a sexual abuse lawsuit. The court ruled that secular negligence laws apply to religious institutions when the case involves administrative failures like hiring and supervision. This decision confirms that the First Amendment does not provide a blanket shield for religious organizations against claims of failing to protect children.
The ruling centers on the application of neutral principles of law to religious entities. The presiding justice determined that a jury must resolve factual disputes regarding the relationship between the Archdiocese and the local school where the abuse allegedly occurred. This case highlights the ongoing legal responsibility of central religious offices for the conduct of employees at affiliated parishes.
What are the facts of the Doe XXV versus Archdiocese of New York case?
The plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for personal injuries from alleged sexual abuse at Our Lady of Mount Carmel School in the Bronx. The alleged abuser was a janitor who worked at the church and school from approximately 1959 to 1992. This individual supervised the school basketball program and founded a film club.
The plaintiff testified to a pattern of abuse that occurred when he was between eight and eleven years old. The alleged incidents took place in several locations and are described in the ruling.
The plaintiff also stated he witnessed the janitor abusing other children.
Can a religious institution be sued for negligent supervision in New York?
The Archdiocese moved for summary judgment, arguing the First Amendment prohibits claims based on its religious norms and customs. The trial court disagreed, noting that the Free Exercise Clause does not preclude liability for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision.
The court held that:
* Courts may adjudicate disputes involving religious institutions if neutral principles of law are the basis for the resolution.
* Liability for negligent hiring does not implicate religious doctrine.
* The Archdiocese failed to identify any religious principle that would be burdened by applying standard negligence laws.
* Determining negligence for a janitor’s actions does not require the court to intervene in theological disputes.
Was there an agency relationship between the Archdiocese and the local school?
The Archdiocese argued it owed no duty of care since it did not directly hire or supervise the janitor. The court found this argument insufficient for summary dismissal. Under New York law, agency relationships between a senior organization and a junior organization can result in imputed liability.
The trial court cited several facts suggesting the Archdiocese maintained a degree of direction and control over the parish:
* The Archbishop appointed the pastor of the church.
* Archbishop approval was required for the transfer of all priests within the territory.
* School principals required approval from the Archdiocese Department of Education before they could serve.
* At least one pastor testified his salary was set and paid by the Archdiocese.
* An official testified that the Archdiocese would investigate suspected instances of child sexual abuse at the school or church.
Did the school or church have notice of the staff member’s conduct?
The court found evidence in the record from which a jury could conclude the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the staff member’s propensities. Knowledge acquired by an agent acting within the scope of their agency is imputed to the principal.
The plaintiff provided the following evidence of reported abuse:
* 1972: A student reported to a parish secretary that he was being touched; the secretary allegedly threatened to ban the student if he continued the accusations.
* 1975: A mother reported concerns about the staff member to a Monsignor. The Monsignor allegedly responded that the children were lying and should not be believed.
* 1977-1982: A mother reported abuse to the school principal approximately seven times. The principal reportedly dismissed the allegations as “rubbish” and the child as a “liar.”
* 1977: A father reported to a teacher and the principal that his son was being touched.
How does the First Amendment apply to sexual abuse lawsuits against churches?
A common question is whether the First Amendment protects religious schools from lawsuits. This ruling clarifies that religious freedom is not a shield against secular negligence. When a religious institution acts as an employer, it must follow the same safety and supervision laws as any other business or school. Hiding behind religious freedom claims to avoid liability for administrative failures, such as ignoring multiple reports of abuse, is legally insufficient when neutral laws are at stake. Religious schools in similar situations must recognize that the duty to protect students is a legal obligation that exists independently of their religious mission.
Legal Commentary
The decision by this trial court reinforces a critical boundary in New York tort law. For decades, large religious organizations have sought to distance themselves from the administrative failures of local parishes. They often claim a lack of direct oversight as a way to avoid liability. This ruling suggests that the legal connection between a central archdiocese and a local school is notable when it comes to the safety of children. By pointing to the appointment of pastors and the approval of principals, the court is identifying a chain of command that carries legal weight.
From a civil liberties perspective, the court is holding that a church is an employer first and a religious body second when it comes to hiring janitorial staff. The First Amendment protects the right to worship, but it does not grant a license to be negligent. When an organization has the power to pay a leader and investigate their conduct, it also has the duty to act when that leader ignores repeated reports of child abuse.
The evidence of notice in this case is particularly difficult for the defense. If a jury believes that multiple parents and students reported a staff member over a ten year period and were met with threats or dismissal, the Archdiocese faces a hard path. Imputing that knowledge from the parish level to the central office is a logical step under agency law. If the principal is the agent of the Archdiocese, then the principal’s silence is legally the Archdiocese’s silence.
Finally, the rejection of the summary judgment motion ensures that these facts will be aired in a public trial. This is exactly what the Child Victims Act intended to achieve. It moves these cases out of the realm of administrative dismissal and into the hands of a jury. The Archdiocese can no longer rely on procedural technicalities to avoid answering for the reported environment at Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
Citation
Doe XXV v. Archdiocese of N.Y. Index No. 950721/2020. Supreme Court, New York County. 21 Jan. 2026. NYSCEF.
Subscription Call: Stay informed on the intersection of law and religious freedom. Like, share, and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV for the latest case updates and legal analysis. Subscribers receive breaking news alerts and in-depth reports on high profile trials.
Disclaimers:
AI Disclaimer: This article was assisted by AI.
Legal Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.
Tags: Child Victims Act, New York Trial Court, Archdiocese of New York, Negligent Supervision, First Amendment.