Victims Feel Left Out of Methodist Church’s Response to Sexual Harassment Charges

/

The Catholic Church isn’t the only religious organization dealing with sexual harassment charges against their religious leaders. But when the United Methodist Church said it had reached a “Just Resolution” with one of the denomination’s most visible pastors, the victims of his sexual misconduct said they felt left out.

Victims Raise Sexual Harassment Charges Against Progressive Methodist Pastor

In November 2018, four women came forward to file sexual harassment complaints with the United Methodist Church against one man: Rev. Donald “Bud” Heckman. Heckman was a well-known progressive pastor from the West Ohio Conference. Famous for his work on inter-faith projects and diversity projects, Heckman had even served on a White House Interreligious Cooperation Task Force during the Obama administration.

But at the same time, Heckman is alleged to have been engaging in unethical and illegal treatment of women he worked with, including his ex-wife. The charges filed with the United Methodist Church alleged the following:

Inter-Faith Conference Leads to Unwelcome Sexual Advances

Megan Anderson, a former student-journalist for The Interfaith Observer met Heckman at the Parliament of World Religions in 2015 in Salt Lake City. Heckman served on the publication’s advisory board at the time. Anderson says he urged her to come to his hotel room then invited her onto his bed and groped her. She left immediately. However, she says Heckman sent her explicit text messages for months afterward expressing sexual fantasies and a desire to marry her.

Professional Promises and False Claims of Relationships

Emily Farthing’s claims against Heckman were similar. She met him at the 2014 North American Interfaith Network Conference, where she was receiving a young adult scholar award. She says Heckman sought her out offering professional advice and grant-writing assistance to help her get into divinity school. He even paid for her room. Then the sexually explicit texts started. At one point Farthing says Heckman came into her room in his underwear and sat on her bed. Eventually she says she stood up to him, refusing his desire to sleep with her. However, she says she learned later that he had been telling other women they had dated and that he helped her through a dark time.

Threats of Deportation After Dating Relationship Ends

K.R., who uses her initials out of fear of retaliation, says she also met Heckman through her interfaith work. She dated him in 2011 and early 2012, when she learned he was still married (he had told her he was divorced), and says she discovered him with another woman. A few months later, he started emailing, calling, and coming to her apartment. According to her charges, “It was a combination of ‘I love you’ and ‘If you leave me I will do XYZ to you.’” K.M. who was in the U.S. on a work visa, says Heckman even threatened to prevent her from staying in the United States.

K.R. filed a report with the New York Police Department in July 2012. Heckman was arrested and pleaded guilty to non-criminal disorderly conduct. He was required to undergo counseling and comply with a two-year protection order.

Christian Morality Standards and an Ex-Wife’s Charges

The fourth woman in the United Methodist Church’s charges was Heckman’s ex-wife, Laura Heckman. She said she and Bud had been married for 20 years when he moved out in 2011. Then she learned about his affairs with other women, including K.R. Laura Heckman’s complaints are not sexual harassment as far as secular courts are concerned. However, the complaint raised concerns about the pastor’s violation of church morality rules against adultery and sexual behavior outside of marriage.

United Methodist Church Settles Complaints in Just Resolution

The West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church received the women’s complaints and reviewed them. Bishop Gregory V. Palmer issued a statement:

 “The West Ohio Conference takes seriously any allegation of a chargeable offense against a pastor.”

The charges included sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and being uncelibate when single and unfaithful while married in violation of church rules. Heckman was suspended from active ministry pending a church trial– an internal process that could have caused him to lose his position, and his credentials as a pastor — originally scheduled for early December 2019. On December 23, 2019, the West Ohio Conference issued a statement saying the church had reached a Just Resolution with Heckman and that no church trial would occur.

That Just Resolution of the women’s complaints said that Heckman would “retire under complaint.” He would lose his appointment and would no longer perform ministerial activities within the United Methodist Church. Heckman also “acknowledged his regret in not being faithful to the ministerial covenant” by performing immoral acts, harassment, and misconduct. Bishop Palmer called the complaint an “arduous process, a burden, especially for the complainants.” He said:

“I deeply regret the harm that has been caused to any person due to an act of sexual misconduct by a pastor. There is no excuse. . . . It is my fervent prayer that all who have been impacted by this matter may continue to heal.”

Sexual Harassment Victims Feel Left Out of Church’s “Just Resolution”

But this resolution to the women’s complaints didn’t feel “just” to them. Megan Anderson told the New York Times:

“I really don’t feel like we were heard. . . . He’s getting a slap on the hand. It leaves victims out of the picture.”

When Heckman’s trial was postponed and then cancelled in favor of the Just Resolution, the accusers say they were left out of the church’s investigative process. They were not required to approve the agreement, and in fact, never signed it. Laura Heckman said:

“It was an opportunity, that’s the saddest part. What I hoped was that the church would take a stand and be an advocate for women, to demonstrate that they are honored and protected. . . . We were completely isolated and left out of the conversation.”

Victims Need Advocates to Make Their Voices Heard

The United Methodist Church isn’t the only organization with an internal process that removes sexual harassment victims from the investigation. Often, after a complainant comes forward with sexual misconduct charges, they are pushed to the side while investigators and Human Resources officers investigate and settle the claims on their own. The victims’ only recourse if they feel the settlement is not enough is to file sexual harassment charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or their state anti-discrimination agency. However, as with the women in Heckman’s case, many victims of sexual harassment don’t come forward until long after the deadline to file an EEOC complaint has passed. Others, like Laura Heckman, have sexual misconduct claims that don’t fit into the definition of discrimination on a state or federal level.

That is why it is so important for the victims of sexual harassment and abuse to talk to someone early — in the weeks or months after the misconduct, if possible — to protect their claims. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, we have sexual harassment and sex abuse attorneys who know how to approach these claims from all sides, from employment-based charges with the EEOC, to civil lawsuits, to criminal charges. We can help you decide whether to rely on your organization’s internal processes, or go public by filing a federal claim or lawsuit. If you are facing sexual harassment within your religious organization, we can help. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to an attorney.

What to Do About Defamation Lawsuits Filed in Response to Sexual Misconduct Claims

/

Coming forward with sexual misconduct claims requires courage and conviction. The idea that your abuser may turn the tables and take you to court may be enough to threaten your confidence. But if your story is true, even a defamation lawsuit filed in response to your sexual misconduct claims can work in your favor and help you get the recovery you need.

#MeToo Abusers Use Defamation Lawsuits to Silence Accusers

Since 2017, the victims of sexual abuse and misconduct have taken to social media to tell their stories as part of the #MeToo movement. This social media hashtag and the media reports surrounding it have cast spotlights on men and women in positions of power who used their influence to coerce, or even force their victims into sexual positions. Across the country, these accused men and women have been removed from their board positions, been fired or forced to resign, and in some cases, faced criminal charges as a result of their sexual misconduct.

The victims of this sexual misconduct have filed charges with the New York Human Rights Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and in state and federal court, seeking compensation for the emotional, financial, and in some cases physical damage caused by the sexual abuse. Some of those accused as part of the #MeToo movement have gone to court themselves, filing defamation lawsuits in response to their accusers’ sexual misconduct claims, putting these survivors on the defensive and forcing them to prove that their stories are true.

Defamation and Reputational Harm

Defamation is a civil lawsuit saying that the defendant’s false statements cause the plaintiff reputational harm and make it harder for the person to work or live in their community. In New York, when a plaintiff sues for libel (written defamation) or slander (spoken defamation), he or she must show:

  • The defendant made a statement (aloud or in writing)
  • That statement was false
  • The statement was published or made to a third person without the privilege or authority to do so
  • In doing so the defendant at least negligently ignored the falsity of the statement
  • Which caused harm to the plaintiff

When the person has taken steps to become a public figure — including politicians, media personalities, and some business leaders — that person’s status makes it harder for them to prove the statements were made with “actual malice” and not just mistakenly false.

Even with their status as public figures, some of those accused have filed defamation claims against their past victims as a way to beat them to the courthouse, frame the issue in a way that hurts the survivor, and ideally intimidate them into withdrawing their claims. They will use any variation in the story or apparent gaps as a loophole to claim the statement was false, and their reputation was harmed as a result. To defend defamation lawsuits filed in response to sexual misconduct claims, you and your sexual abuse attorney should work to establish the truth of your claim and that yours was the reputation that was harmed.

Sexual Misconduct Survivors Turn Defamation Cases in Their Favor

Not every defamation claim hurts sexual misconduct survivors, though. Some victims of long-ago sexual assault have used this type of case as a last effort to bring their abusers to justice. Until New York lengthened the statute of limitations for filing sex abuse lawsuits, many victims of sexual misconduct came forward years after the alleged incidents, only to find they had missed their chance to prove their case.

However, when public disclosures of sexual misconduct resulted in personal attacks against survivors, those attacks often were grounds for their own defamation lawsuits. For example, when Ashley Judd came forward with accusations against Harvey Weinstein, her allegations were too old to file a lawsuit in California (where the acts occurred). But then, Director Peter Jackson said that he had removed her from a casting list for his now-famous “Lord of the Rings” films after Weinstein told him Judd was a “nightmare” to work with and should be avoided “at all costs.” Since this was the first Judd had learned of the false statements (slander), she was able to file a defamation lawsuit saying that Weinstein’s words had caused her reputational harm and damaged her career.

Defamation vs Retaliation Claims in Sexual Misconduct Cases

Judd’s defamation lawsuit also closely mirrors the retaliation claims many employees file against their employers after their retaliation claims result in the company firing the wrong person. Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws include protections against this kind of retaliation, giving employees a separate complaint any time a claim results in an “adverse employment action”.

But sexual misconduct isn’t limited to the workplace. When abusers use defamation lawsuits as a form of retaliation, the battle for the truth takes place in the courtroom, rather than the EEOC office. That’s when survivors and their attorneys need to be diligent and hold to their claims. By refusing to back down, these survivors can show the courts, and the public, the truth of their claims, turning the cases back against their abusers, and finally get the compensation they deserve.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, we have a team of attorneys who know how to fight back against sex abuse and sexual harassment. Led by Attorney Adriana Alcalde, our sexual abuse attorneys will stand beside you when your abuser tries to use a defamation lawsuit to silence you. We’ll help you get the justice and compensation you deserve. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

EEOC Sexual Harassment Claims Drop in 2019

/

Every year, thousands of women and men file claims with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for discrimination and sexual harassment at work. Surprisingly, last year the number of sexual harassment claims dropped, even though there was a nationwide push for women to come forward about sexual abuse and misconduct. Find out why that may be.

EEOC Releases 2019 Enforcement and Litigation Data

The EEOC has released its data for claims filed and enforcement actions in 2019. Here’s the breakdown:

  • Total Charges: 72,675
  • Retaliation: 39,110 (53.8%)
  • Disability: 24,238 (33.4%)
  • Race: 23,976 (33%)
  • Sex: 23,532 (32.4%)
  • Age: 15,573 (21.4%)
  • National Origin: 009 (9.6%)
  • Religion: 2,725 (3.7%)
  • Color: 3,415 (4.7%)
  • Equal Pay Act: 1,117 (1.5%)
  • Genetic Information: 209 (0.3%)

Many complaints raised more than one charge, or coupled discrimination and harassment complaints with retaliation by their employer after the discrimination was reported. These numbers do not include charges filed with state or local agencies such as the New York Human Rights Commission.

Sexual harassment and gender discrimination accounted for nearly one third of all the national discrimination complaints under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This reflects the ongoing struggle for women workers to be treated the same as men in the workplace.

Total Claims, Sex Discrimination Charges Show Continued Drop in Enforcement

Both the total number of charges and the sex harassment and gender discrimination claims show a trend away from filing with the EEOC. While the percentage of claims related to sex has remained steady near 30%, the total number of claims has dropped dramatically since they peaked at 30,356 in 2012. Total claim numbers show a similar trend. The 72,675 claims filed in 2019 pales in comparison to the nearly 100,000 charges in 2010, 2011, and 2012.

This reflects the EEOC’s shift in priority to reduce its caseload. Last year, EEOC Acting Chair Victoria A. Lipnic said the agency was trying to focus on “meritorious charges” and cases that “advance the public interest” rather than representing a broader range of women and minorities facing discrimination at work.

When Should You Skip Filing an EEOC Complaint?

Filing a claim with the EEOC may seem like a logical first step for your sexual harassment or gender discrimination claim. In fact, it is mandatory under most federal anti-discrimination laws. You usually cannot file a complaint in federal court until you have received a notice of right to sue from the EEOC. However, filing a complaint isn’t always the best choice for employees. You may want to skip or delay filing an EEOC complaint if:

You Work for a Very Small Company

The EEOC only has authority over employers with 15 or more employees (except in cases of Equal Pay Act violations). If you work for a very small company, you may not be able to use the EEOC or the federal statutes it enforces to get the relief you need.

You Want to Continue in Your Current Position

Retaliation is illegal under every state and federal anti-discrimination law. But the fact that 53% of all charges filed with the EEOC were for retaliation shows that it is still a real part of resolving sexual harassment and discrimination. From a practical perspective, if your goal is to keep your current position and change the culture in your workplace, the EEOC may not be your best choice. Instead, you and your gender discrimination attorney may be able to negotiate the changes you seek without burning bridges and making your employer more hostile to you and your cause.

Your Claim is Better Protected Under State Statutes

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is the national go-to statute for sexual harassment and gender discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it is the gold standard. For some, state and local laws may apply more directly or provide better options for enforcement. This is especially true for independent contractors, vendors, and the victims of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. However, a claim at one office sometimes precludes filing the same claim somewhere else. Before you decide whether to go to the EEOC or the New York Human Rights Commission, be sure to talk to an experienced employment discrimination attorney so you understand the effects of that decision.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced gender discrimination and sexual harassment attorneys have seen all kinds of employment discrimination cases. We know when to file a claim with the EEOC and how to make the New York State Human Rights Law work for employees who might otherwise not get the attention they deserve. Contact us to schedule a consultation at our office in New York City, or over the phone.