"California's federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today posted its affirmation of a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit against the Church of Scientology brought by two of its former employees, Marc and Claire Headley.

They sued in 2009, claiming that as Sea Org members making about $50 a week for 100-hour weeks of work and with the prospect of being hunted down if they dared to leave, that they had been victims of human trafficking violations. Claire also alleged that twice she had been forced to have abortions in order to keep up that level of work, and had been threatened that she would be separated from her husband and kicked out if she didn't terminate her pregnancies.

Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit found, however, that the Headleys had many opportunities to leave their jobs and the Sea Org but did not do so, undercutting their claims that they were forced to work under terrible conditions."

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... _win_2.php

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... rit=319526

The court opinion.. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -56266.pdf

Last year in April at a protest Headley told me that the cult was trying to get $80,000 in legal fees and that was BEFORE the appeal

I'm still hoping there will be a judge who will disagree about the ministerial exception and hammer them for violating minimum wage laws.

The only way that is possible now, is if Marc & Claire appeal the lawsuit further to the Supreme Court, but I suspect they won't, because it only hears cases it whether there is a big question where case law has been appropriately applied in deciding the outcome of a lawsuit. They would not consider the Headley's reasons for bringing the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court refuses to hear many cases. And yes, the cult can still, and probably will, file a motion with the lower court asking that the court order the Headley's pay legal fees & court costs to them for having to defend themselves in the lawsuit.

This is normal in most lawsuits where the defendants prevail in a lawsuit.

This sucks, BUT I still believe it will help in future lawsuits. The next person/people who try to sue will have that much more information to use, and could try another angle, now that they know the weaknesses and strengths of the different approaches. Eventually, something's gotta work.

Reuters writes about the worst abuses, including the forced abortions. Many newspapers, magazines, and other media use Reuters stories, so the net effect is bad PR for Scientology. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... NF20120724

In the hindsight, I think that a better idea for the couple would be suing the cult on the basis of violation of child labor protection laws -- they both joined Sea Org as teenagers.

“Likewise, we do not decide how the Headleys might have
fared under a different statute or on other legal theories. The
Headleys abandoned claims under federal and state minimum
wage laws. And although the Headleys marshaled evidence of
potentially tortious conduct, they did not bring claims for
assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, or any of a number of other theories that
might have better fit the evidence.”

I think that “intentional infliction of emotional distress” is a correct description of the couple’s ordeal.

Great article.

This "win" for Scientology looks like will result in another round of bad publicity for them.

The bad PR is temporary. History has shown that people's grasp of attention to specific issues is limited and wanes as time passes. That wouldn't be the case for Scientology critics & exes, but would be for most people who don't have a dog in the fight.

Take, for example, the Aurora, Colorado theater massacres. Most of the international media's focus was on Aurora, through the weekend & up until the suspect's appearance in court on Monday. Yesterday, most of the media has left Aurora and they were focused on other matters that did not involve the theater massacre.

I remember in the mid-90s after Lisa McPherson's death, the critics were all espousing that the repercussions of her death would spell the end to Scientology. It didn't. People moved on, and the media did as well. How often, today, do you hear about Lisa McPherson mentioned by the media?

Bad PR is only effective when it remains front-and-center in people's minds.

Scientology will push every button to make sure they are billed and enturbulated. This will make an example of them to future litigants, no doubt.

Late, and a bit rough and ready, but I've written up the appeal court decision at Infinite Complacency:

http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com ... suits.html

Jonny Jacobsen

Thanks, Jonny.

Good to know that Laura D's suit is still in the works, which, as you say, is a more scatter gun approach.

If that's what the court wants, maybe this one has a better chance.

I think this was a cloud with a BIG silver lining!
The 9th did not simply without comment dismiss, oh no.
They said basically that the suit did not meet the bar on the charges but did give a roadmap of exactly which charges they felt the couple would do better with. With the ninth basically saying that they likely would rule in favor of those charges it seems reasonable to assume that any lawsuit using the assault and other charges the ninth outlined would succeed.

I have just published a fairly extensive piece on the appeal court ruling at Infinite Complacency, built around an analysis by the lawyer who filed the original lawsuits, Barry Van Sickle:

The U.S. Appeal court's rejection of the Headley lawsuits against Scientology is not carte blanche for future abuse, says the attorney who filed the original complaints: but the judgment still got it wrong, he argues.

You'll see it goes rather deeper than my previous post on the ruling last month. It is much longer than I usually post and perhaps not the easiest read, but I thought it was worth exploring the issues in detail so as to take advantage of Van Sickle's informed opinions.

http://infinitecomplacency.blogspot.com ... uling.html

Jonny Jacobsen
Infinite Complacency

A sure-fire win would be child labor from a recently escaped Sea Org worker, with documentation (like a journal) or witnesses proving long hours, low pay, and not enough hours of real schooling at the cadet academy. It would need to be filed before the statute of limitations expires.