GreaseSpot Cafe > WayDale Documents >
Lawsuit Section
Sidney
Daily News - 10/20/2000
Way attorneys seek dismissal of suit involving former staff
Attorneys representing The Way International have filed a
motion seeking a judgment and dismissal of a lawsuit filed by
a couple who were former employees there.
In the motion filed recently in Shelby County Common Pleas
Court, attorneys claim The Way, 5555 Wierwille Road, New
Knoxville, is protected by the First Amendment against most of
the claims alleged by Mrs. Allen and Mr. Allen. Regarding
allegations of coerced sexual activity, defense attorneys
claim they waited too long to make the allegations in court.
Former employees of The Way, the Allens claim they suffered
humiliation, embarrassment and stress at the hands of The Way
officials, and that officials attempted to "coerce"
Mrs. Allen into engaging in sexual activity with the Rev. L.
Craig Martindale, former president, between 1996 and 1999. The
Allens resigned from The Way in 1999.
Martindale is named a defendant in the lawsuit along with the
Rev. Rosalie F. Rivenbark. Martindale resigned as The Way
president soon after the complaint was filed and was replaced
by Rivenbark. Last month Martindale resigned from all official
affiliations with The Way. Martindale claims he and Mrs. Allen
had a consensual affair.
Defense attorneys Louis A. Columbo of Cleveland and Michael F.
Boller of Sidney contend in the motion that the Allens’
complaint is grounded in two claims: that Mrs. Allen had
sexual relations with Martindale, and that Mr. Allen was
injured and overworked during his training in the Way Corps,
an employee training program.
"Plaintiffs have no cognizable claim because (1) Mrs. Allen’s claim... is precluded by the one-year statute of
limitations for alleged sexual assault, and (2) the rest of
the claims, which ask this court to regulate how The Way
practices its beliefs or how it conducts religious instruction
and training for its ministers, are barred by the First
Amendment... and are not susceptible of adjudication by civil
courts," the motion argues. It notes the Ohio Third
District Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision to
dismiss a claim against a religious organization on similar
grounds.
The Allens are seeking $2 million on a claim of breach of
contract and additional damages on other claims. They also
claim The Way officials defrauded them of money, conspired
against them and damaged their reputations. They claim damages
totaling $56 million. They also claim the "mark and
avoid" designation ordered by The Way leaders on former
members defamed them.
The motion includes a summary of the allegations related to
the sexual encounters. It claims the first encounter was in
August 1996, and they had sexual relations four times, ending
in May 1997. The motion claims she did not resist Martindale
the first time and was a willing participant the other times.
In June 1998, the Board of Trustees leaned Martindale had a
sexual relationship with another follower of The Way. Board
members "chastised" Martindale and took steps to
guard against another incident. The board learned of the
encounters with Allen in March 1999, but the motion explained
that since those encounters predated June 1998 and the
measures the board took then, board members decided no
additional action was necessary.
The motion claims the one-year time limit (statute of
limitations) for assault and battery has expired, so the
claims related to the sexual encounters should be dismissed.
These allegations should be considered an assault case no
matter how they are classified or phrased, the motion argues.
It noted the Allens should have filed a complaint on these
allegations by May 1998 to be considered. The lawsuit was
filed last April.
On the other claims, the motion claims the First Amendment
must be followed because allegations are based on the
religious practices and beliefs of The Way. The motion
presents arguments that the First Amendment prohibits courts
from deciding matters of religious doctrine, practice, policy
or faith; it prohibits courts from deciding matters of church
administration, organization or discipline; it prohibits
courts from deciding claims based on The Way’s religious
beliefs; it protects the practices and policies that are
required of all followers of The Way; and it protects The
Way’s practice of "marking and avoiding" former
members.
The motion explained the "mark and avoid"
designation is a practice of "shunning" former
members that is based on The Way’s interpretation of the
Bible. In a similar complaint, another court concluded that
the practice of shunning is protected by the First Amendment
and dismissed the complaint.
The Allens operate a site on the Internet called WayDale that
offers "insider information" about officials of The
Way.
Judge John D. Schmitt indicated in a ruling that he would rule
on the motion without a hearing unless an objection is filed.
Trial in the lawsuit is planned for Nov. 8.
|