Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims

OHIOOtherOhio courts have held that nonconsensual sexual contact between anemployee and another person, where the employer did not promotesuch activity, was outside of the scope of employment. See Byrd v.Faber, 565 N.E.2d 584 (Ohio 1991); Kuhn v. Youlten, 692 N.E.2d 226(Ohio App. 1997); Gebhart v. College of Mt. St. Joseph, 665 N.E.2d223 (Ohio App. 1995); Mills v. Deehr, 2004 WL 1047720 (Ohio App.May 6, 2004).The Ohio Supreme Court held that while the First Amendment wouldbar allegations of negligent hiring and retention against a church, itwould not protect a religious institution where facts were the institutionknew or should have known of the employee’s criminal or tortiouspropensities. Byrd v. Faber, 565 N.E.2d 584 (Ohio 1991); See alsoDoe v. First Presbyterian Church, 710 N.E.2d 367 (Ohio App. 1998).The First Amendment also does not act as a bar to claims which donot specifically concern church doctrine or religious practice. Bennettv. Evangelical Lutheran Church, 647 N.E.2d 566 (Ohio App. 1994).– 51 –