A West Virginia Court has reportedly ruled against the LDS church, allowing a sexual harrassment suit, in which the church is named as a defendant, to go forward.

A press release from Michael G. Sullivan, the plaintiff's attorney in the case, claims that Raleigh County, WV Judge H. L. Kirkpatrick ruled that the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution does not shield a church from civil liability. The ruling reverses Judge Kirkpatrick's earlier dismissal of the $750 million suit against the LDS church, allowing the plaintiff to amend its complaint and include the LDS church as a defendant in the suit.

The suit alleges that local leaders of the LDS church knew of the sexual abuse of the anonymous plaintiff (called Jane Doe in court papers) by her father for five years before the father was arrested and convicted in 1994. The father, who was a member of the church, told the grandfather, who was his LDS Bishop, about the abuse. The Bishop also reportedly told a 'senior church official' of the abuse at the time.

Also named in the suit is Kenneth Holt, CEO of Raleigh General Hospital and also a member of the LDS church. The suit alleges that Holt also knew of the abuse and surpressed it.

Since the source of all of the above information is from the plaintiff's lawyer, no information is available in the press release on the LDS church's reaction.

The office of Michael G. Sullivan, P.C., Attorney At Law today released the following:

In a ruling that carries national significance, a West Virginia court ruled recently that the First Amendment does not protect religious organizations from civil liability merely because of their status as a church.

Raleigh County Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick made the ruling in response to a suit, filed by a young girl and her mother, that seeks $750 million in damages from the Mormon church. In their complaint, the young girl, identified only as Jane Doe, contends the Mormon church knew that her father was sexually abusing her for five years and failed to report it as required by state law.

Jane Doe alleges that not only did the church fail to report knowledge of her abuse, but it has actually suppressed evidence of the abuse of hundreds of other Mormon children over the years.

The Court's ruling represents a serious setback for the Mormon church and its team of lawyers who have raised this defense in similar suits throughout the country. The Mormon church has been sued at least 26 other times for their failure to report the sexual abuse of children.

In the past, the Mormon church has vigorously defended sexual abuse suits by relying upon the First Amendment, which calls for separation of church and state. "Because of the Court's ruling, the church will need to re-examine its strategy in dealing with reports it receives of sexually abused children," said Michael Sullivan, the lawyer representing Jane Doe and her mother.

The Mormon church has centered most of its arguments on the question of when does the state's interest in protecting children override a church's First Amendment rights to avoid government control. The Court responded by saying the state's interest in protecting children from the horrors of sexual abuse "will override even the most sincerely held religious convictions."

The Court, in an exhaustive opinion, examined each of the Mormon church's First Amendment claims and found that they did not shield the church from this suit.

The Court also found that Jane Doe and her mother "have alleged sufficient gross, wanton and reckless conduct such that a jury may award punitive damages." Awards of punitive damages are designed to punish a defendant in order to deter similar bad conduct in the future.

Although Judge Kirkpatrick had earlier dismissed the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as defendants on procedural grounds, after hearing arguments from the plaintiff, the Court allowed them to amend their complaint and return the Mormon church as defendants in the suit.

Church lawyers have attempted to distance the Mormon church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, from the local church in Beckley, claiming its members were not acting for the Mormon church itself when they failed to report the sexual abuse of Jane Doe. The Court found this contention by the church unpersuasive and ruled that a jury should decide whether or not Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City exercise control over their local churches.

"This defense too has been widely used by the Mormon Church in similar suits, and its rejection by the Court presents the Church with a difficult choice," Sullivan said.

In 1994, after five years of abuse, Jane Doe's father was arrested and convicted on 37 counts of sexual abuse of a minor. The father is currently serving a 184-year sentence in a West Virginia prison.

Jane Doe alleges that her father, a member of the Mormon Church, began sexually assaulting her when she was three years old. Her brother, who was seven years old at the time, was also repeatedly abused. The father told the children's grandfather, a bishop in the Church, who notified a senior Church official of the abuse. The children lived alone with their father at this time.

The complaint further alleges that the Chief Executive Officer of Raleigh General Hospital at the time, Kenneth Holt, also a member of the Mormon Church, too knew of the abuse of the children. No church members reported the sexual abuse. The suit contends that local church leaders, mimicking Mormon authorities around the country, acted to suppress evidence of this abuse for five years.

The plaintiffs contend that the conspiracy to suppress evidence of sexual abuse of Mormon children is motivated by the Church's desire to continue its phenomenal growth, and to prevent any interference with the donations it receives. It is the fastest growing evangelical Church in the world. Members are required to donate a tenth of their gross income to the Mormon Church each year. All tithes from around the world are sent to a bank in Salt Lake City, Utah, every week.

One of the first cases dealing with the issue of religious freedom in this country coincidentally involved the Mormon Church and its belief that polygamy was a basic tenant of its religion. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Mormons were free to believe what they wished, the secular law against plural marriages would have to be followed.

"This ruling re-affirms that in America, not the President nor any church is above the law," Sullivan said.