In a dispute that pitted the Church of Scientology against California tort Law, California law won. Even though plaintiffs had signed a strict arbitration agreement that relinquished their rights to ever sue the church, the Court of Appeals ruled that ex-church members are no longer governed by Scientology law and are not contractually bound by it after they leave the church.

Division Five of the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal granted a petition for a writ of mandate that ordered the Los Angeles Superior Court to vacate its order compelling plaintiffs to settle their dispute through church-imposed arbitration. The unanimous opinion, issued January 19, was written by Presiding Justice Lawrence D. Rubin, with a concurrence by Associate Justice Carl H. Moor and a partial concurrence by Associate Justice Lamar W. Baker.

The First Amendment’s freedom of religion clauses and the timeline of when plaintiffs left the Church formed the foundations for the Court’s opinion. First, Rubin wrote that “individuals have a First Amendment right to leave a religion” and he said, “One of the fundamental purposes of the First Amendment is to protect the people’s right to worship as they choose.”

Next, because the church’s allegedly tortious conduct took place after they left the church and had nothing to do with “ecclesiastical issues,” the arbitration agreement was ruled to be moot. The opinion said the key issue in the case was whether disputes between the Church and those who have left the faith must be “governed by and resolved solely in Scientology tribunals.”

The case began when members of the Church of Scientology told the police that another church member, actor Danny Masterson, had raped them. After the police report was filed, four plaintiffs, actress/model Chrissie Carnell Bixler, her husband musician Cedric Bixler-Zavala and two Jane Does, claim they were subjected to an extensive harassment campaign they believe was orchestrated by the Scientologists. They also claim the Church covered up Masterson’s sexual misconduct.

Plaintiffs sued the Church of Scientology International, Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International, (collectively called the Church), accused rapist Daniel Masterson and David Miscavige, a Church official. They allege that the Church was engaged in stalking, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. They said they were “not seeking to recover from the sexual assault itself,” but rather they were filing tort claims for “invasive actions that occurred after they left the church.” The Defendant Church argued that they had a binding contract with the plaintiffs.

The Church said that plaintiffs had to follow its Ethics, Justice and Binding Religious Arbitration system. In part, the documents they signed stated that the church member “freely consented” to be exclusively bound by Scientology law and that they were “forever abandoning, surrendering, waiving, and relinquishing my right to sue or otherwise seek legal recourse with respect to any dispute, claim or controversy against the Church…” They also agreed that the contract would be submitted to an outside judicial officer as “a complete and sufficient basis of the immediate dismissal…” of any and all proceedings. They explicitly agreed to submit to arbitration conducted by the International Chief of the Mother Church for subsequent proceedings.

Under Church policies, those who sought to break their contract would be subjected to punishment under its “Fair Game” policy. “Fair Game” tactics include activities that “attack, harass, embarrass, humiliate, destroy, and/or injure individuals” who Defendants declared to be an enemy of Scientology. “Those who break the arbitration agreement are known in Scientology as a “Suppressive Person,” the complaint said.

As Suppressive Persons, plaintiffs claim they were placed under surveillance, filmed, chased, had hacked security systems, and even had their pets killed. They said the Church “incited others to harass them, threatened to kill them, broke their locks, broke into their cars, ran them off the road, posted fake ads purporting to be from them and soliciting anal sex from strangers, set the outside of their home on fire, went through their trash and poisoned their trees.” In summary, they said “Suppressive Persons are to be silenced by whatever means necessary….and to ruin the individual utterly.”

After the lawsuit was filed, the Church moved to compel the arbitration that is clearly set out in the agreements that all plaintiffs signed. They claimed that the Contract was a religious ritual. They cited California arbitration laws as well as the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment clauses and said, “This Court may not interfere…by imposing civil rules for arbitration.” Throughout the proceedings, the church claimed that the arbitration agreement was part of its religion.

Plaintiff/petitioners opposed the Church, arguing they had a constitutional right to change religions, they had left the church when its tortious behavior began, and that since they were Suppressive Persons, they could never receive fair treatment in any Church-run proceeding. Defendants basically said that when plaintiffs joined the church and signed the arbitration agreements, they knew and understood what they were doing. They also said “Fair Game” had never been Church policy.

A hearing on the motions was held in November 2020. On December 20, the trial court ruled that “the plain words of the (arbitration) agreements encompassed all claims against Scientology and not merely those arising from the contracts.” The court declined to address petitioners’ challenges and concluded that to do so “would be an inquiry of faith, which must be left to adjudication of the Church itself.” Petitioners filed for a writ mandate in March 2021. In May, the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal. In its opinion on January 19, the appellate court said that the Church has the burden of proving that there was “an enforceable arbitration agreement.” The opinion concluded that the Church failed to meet that burden.

Primarily, it found the dispute was not a religious matter and did not concern a “theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them.” The opinion, therefore, concluded the matter “could be resolved under neutral principles of law” including the constitutional right to change religions. It wrote that since petitioners left the Church before the torts occurred, they are not bound by its contracts. It found there was no “hostility” or interference with the First Amendment rights of the Church. Finally, it said there was no “irrevocable agreement to forever waive civil proceedings and submit to Scientology rules.”