Due Diligence: Kahwajy v. Catholic Diocese of Richmond
posted by Protagonist | 7:27 PM 
Court documents of the case can be downloaded, in .pdf form, here. Yesterday public schools, today parochial schools . . . .
To sum up, Carol Kahwajy was hired, and subsequently fired six months later, as principal of the St. Benedict School in the Richmond area. She alleged that (1) the superintendent and clergy in charge of the school said some pretty bad things about her while there, and (2) those things are all completely and utterly untrue. She sued for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to ruin her employment and career. Kahwajy valued the damage to her career, reputation and peace of mind to be at $14,150,000.00 plus $350,000.00 in punitive damages.
Among the completely and utterly untrue statements that she alleged have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever are (a) that Kawajy had been engaged in a "morally inappropriate" relationship with a priest, whom she says they say is on medication for "emotional impairment" and suicidal, (b) that she had covered for a priest's sexual abuse of elementary school students (c) that she "was using the children at St. Benedict School as pawns to get money from old people", and had been generally misappropriating and overspending money, (d) that she herself was abusive to children, and (e) that she was generally dishonest, the "queen of schmooze", and lacked integrity in the discharge of her duties. Thrown in this list of atrocities--with no clear connection to any of her legal complaints--is the story of how Kawajy reported abuse by a Father Hersh in the mid 80s, whom she claims abused 7th and 8th grade children, allowed 4th grade children to touch his private parts, was quietly reassigned to a parish in Virginia Beach, and subsequently committed suicide in 1994.
Defamation suits are problematic for a number of reasons. The essence of the legal claim is that someone said something bad and untrue about the plaintiff, and that these statements caused her economic harm. Unless the plaintiff works somewhere akin to the Nixon-era White House, proving that anyone said any specific phrase can be as hard as nailing a jellyfish to a wall. Nor are the stated opinions of others actionable, but only alleged fact. You can't sue someone for calling you an "an ass", but for calling you "an ass who steals money and abuses children." On top of that problem, the plaintiff has to state in public record all the "untrue" things said about her, and she invites a challenge in court over the truth of these very embarrassing statements (since truth is a defense to the charge of defamation). And to make things even harder for Kawajy, she encountered the inevitable First Amendment/Freedom of Speech & Religion problems of suing a church for saying that she was immoral.
Also, in my (non-defamatory!) opinion, her lawyers didn't put together her Motion for Judgment too well. First, she sues for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, which I learned as a first-year law student was not a tort in Virginia. Second is the factual unclearness; e.g. regarding the story about Father Hersh mentioned above, she mentions it occurred in 1984-85, yet "Paragraph 37c" which she cites discusses a 1983 incident. The reader could easily confuse alleged statements made about her relationship with Father Hersh (the priest who committed suicide in '94), or her relationship with Father Kauffmann, the current parish priest. Finally, the plaintiff may have had better luck pursuing a employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act. There is a world of difference between calling an employee an "idiot" or a "bitch". The latter insults a woman for being a woman, which is arguably hostile workplace discrimination against a women, protected under the law. Claiming statutory discrimination, instead of these squishy defamation and conspiracy claims, may have kept her case alive. However, I'm not certain whether this was feasible against a church either. I'm not a litigating PI or Employment Law lawyer. Then again, court records show the author of this Motion for Judgment to be a part of an Estate Planning firm.
Another problem with defamation suits is that no one comes out looking good. Here we have a seedy look at the workings of the Catholic Parochial school system which many of us wish wasn't there: abusive teachers, molesting priests, financial malfeasance, neurotic school administration, etc. This is the case regardless of who was telling the truth about what. And regardless of what we believe to be the True Church, all of us should pray that God watches over this school system, if for no other reasons, than for the young souls who live and learn therein.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: Any legal discussion or information above should be considered to be exclusively for purposes of entertainment. No communication herein should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Nor is any communication herein intended to form an attorney/client relationship between its author(s), its readers, and/or any third party to whom it is transmitted. Please consult an attorney practicing in your jurisdiction if you have questions about the law or your legal rights and duties in a specific situation.
To sum up, Carol Kahwajy was hired, and subsequently fired six months later, as principal of the St. Benedict School in the Richmond area. She alleged that (1) the superintendent and clergy in charge of the school said some pretty bad things about her while there, and (2) those things are all completely and utterly untrue. She sued for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to ruin her employment and career. Kahwajy valued the damage to her career, reputation and peace of mind to be at $14,150,000.00 plus $350,000.00 in punitive damages.
Among the completely and utterly untrue statements that she alleged have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever are (a) that Kawajy had been engaged in a "morally inappropriate" relationship with a priest, whom she says they say is on medication for "emotional impairment" and suicidal, (b) that she had covered for a priest's sexual abuse of elementary school students (c) that she "was using the children at St. Benedict School as pawns to get money from old people", and had been generally misappropriating and overspending money, (d) that she herself was abusive to children, and (e) that she was generally dishonest, the "queen of schmooze", and lacked integrity in the discharge of her duties. Thrown in this list of atrocities--with no clear connection to any of her legal complaints--is the story of how Kawajy reported abuse by a Father Hersh in the mid 80s, whom she claims abused 7th and 8th grade children, allowed 4th grade children to touch his private parts, was quietly reassigned to a parish in Virginia Beach, and subsequently committed suicide in 1994.
Defamation suits are problematic for a number of reasons. The essence of the legal claim is that someone said something bad and untrue about the plaintiff, and that these statements caused her economic harm. Unless the plaintiff works somewhere akin to the Nixon-era White House, proving that anyone said any specific phrase can be as hard as nailing a jellyfish to a wall. Nor are the stated opinions of others actionable, but only alleged fact. You can't sue someone for calling you an "an ass", but for calling you "an ass who steals money and abuses children." On top of that problem, the plaintiff has to state in public record all the "untrue" things said about her, and she invites a challenge in court over the truth of these very embarrassing statements (since truth is a defense to the charge of defamation). And to make things even harder for Kawajy, she encountered the inevitable First Amendment/Freedom of Speech & Religion problems of suing a church for saying that she was immoral.
Also, in my (non-defamatory!) opinion, her lawyers didn't put together her Motion for Judgment too well. First, she sues for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, which I learned as a first-year law student was not a tort in Virginia. Second is the factual unclearness; e.g. regarding the story about Father Hersh mentioned above, she mentions it occurred in 1984-85, yet "Paragraph 37c" which she cites discusses a 1983 incident. The reader could easily confuse alleged statements made about her relationship with Father Hersh (the priest who committed suicide in '94), or her relationship with Father Kauffmann, the current parish priest. Finally, the plaintiff may have had better luck pursuing a employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act. There is a world of difference between calling an employee an "idiot" or a "bitch". The latter insults a woman for being a woman, which is arguably hostile workplace discrimination against a women, protected under the law. Claiming statutory discrimination, instead of these squishy defamation and conspiracy claims, may have kept her case alive. However, I'm not certain whether this was feasible against a church either. I'm not a litigating PI or Employment Law lawyer. Then again, court records show the author of this Motion for Judgment to be a part of an Estate Planning firm.
Another problem with defamation suits is that no one comes out looking good. Here we have a seedy look at the workings of the Catholic Parochial school system which many of us wish wasn't there: abusive teachers, molesting priests, financial malfeasance, neurotic school administration, etc. This is the case regardless of who was telling the truth about what. And regardless of what we believe to be the True Church, all of us should pray that God watches over this school system, if for no other reasons, than for the young souls who live and learn therein.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: Any legal discussion or information above should be considered to be exclusively for purposes of entertainment. No communication herein should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Nor is any communication herein intended to form an attorney/client relationship between its author(s), its readers, and/or any third party to whom it is transmitted. Please consult an attorney practicing in your jurisdiction if you have questions about the law or your legal rights and duties in a specific situation.
3 Comments:
Protag - one add'l point of a less legal sense and a more eternal one: lawsuits among believers. Paul puts it squarely to the Corinthians thusly:
If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:1-11)
Seeking justice in this life is a hallmark of the less than faithful; I say "less than" because we all have an imperfect faith - even those of us professing it in droves. Perhaps especially, in that case.
It is the Lord Who rights wrongs in the eternal sense. We can do so in the temporal - but only to a degree - and usually not to the complete satisfaction of the victimized.
In the court of Caesar, there should seldom be a dispute of brethren, as it reflects so poorly on Christ Himself. Ultimately however, it is not Christ, but we who are warring with our torts - reasonable or not.
I wonder if our greater trespass is not that we reflect poorly the light of Christ when we trespass against our brother.
Additionally, here is an interesting compilation of commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:1-11.
You may be interested in knowing that Richmond's new bishop sacked the superintendent who fired the principal and stripped the priest who allegedly conspired against the principal of his cushy job and sent him out to do real work as a parish priest. Fr. Kauffmann remains the pastor of a thriving parish.
Post a Comment
<< Home