Watchtower Legal Cases Examined
Candace Conti v. Watchtower, et. al.
Case Summary
In January 2011, a plaintiff filing under the name of Jane Doe sued two Watchtower Society corporations, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Fremont congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Johnathan Kendrick in a Northern California District court. The lawsuit charged Watchtower, et. al., with negligence and failing to prevent Jonathan Kendrick from sexually abusing the plaintiff in the time period of 1996 and 1997, while she was a minor.
The lawsuit alleged that Watchtower and congregation elders knew about Kendrick’s history of child sexual abuse and failed to warn the plaintiff, her family, and the congregation of the public danger Kendrick posed.
Watchtower defended itself by attempting to use the first amendment of the United States Constitution to claim the religious privilege of keeping the information confidential.
[Learn more about the rule colloquially known as “the two-witness rule” here.]
At one point between the time of the filing of the lawsuit and the date of the trial, the plaintiff listed as Jane Doe decided to go public with her identity. Her name is Candace Conti.
The Trial
The case went to trial on May 29, 2012. After 10 days of trial and juror deliberations, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, Candace Conti, in the amount of $7 million in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages. The jury verdict found that Watchtower was responsible for 40% of the compensatory damages awarded while Kendrick was responsible for the remaining 60%.
According to court records, these were the facts found by the jury in that trial:
Question: Did Jonathan Kendrick sexually batter Candace Conti?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Was the sexual battery by Jonathan Kendrick a cause of harm to Candace Conti?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Was Gary Abrahamson, as an agent of Watchtower and the North Fremont Congregation, negligent?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Was Michael Clarke, as an agent of Watchtower and the North Fremont Congregation, negligent?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Were the elders in the Service Department, as agents of Defendant Watchtower, negligent?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Was [their] negligence, as agents of Watchtower, a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff Candace Conti?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Do you [the jury] find by clear and convincing evidence that any of the negligent conduct of Watchtower that was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff Candace Conti was engaged in with malice by a managing agent of Defendant Watchtower?
Answer: Yes.
The Appeal
Watchtower filed an appeal almost immediately, and the appeal was accepted by the California Court of Appeals, First District, on August 8, 2012.
Watchtower was required to put up a $17 million bond in order to move forward with the appeal. Watchtower attempted to substitute property they owned in Patterson, NY in lieu of the bond, however this was rejected by the court.
Watchtower’s defense on appeal was that they had no duty to warn the congregation of a child sexual abuser in their midst, they felt the punitive damages were unlawfully excessive, and they felt that imposition of a duty-to-warn would unconstitutionally require the jury to assess the propriety of their religious beliefs.
The appeals court heard oral arguments on January 14, 2015 and issued their decision on April 15, 2015. The court ruled that Watchtower had no duty to warn the congregation or Conti’s parents that Kendrick had molested a child, but that Watchtower can be held liable for failing to limit and supervise Kendrick’s door-to-door preaching in the community. Because the court ruled there was no duty to warn, the court did not have to rule on the question of excessive punitive damages or the constitutionality of having a jury assess the propriety of their religious beliefs. Since breach of the alleged duty to warn was the sole basis for imposition of punitive damages on Watchtower, those damages were reversed. Damages Watchtower was responsible for was reduced to $2.8 million, their portion of the $7 million jury verdict.
Conti and Watchtower settled the case out of court with no further appeal in June 2015.
Media Coverage
Jehovah's Witnesses Told to Pay in Abuse Case - The New York Times
Jehovah’s Witnesses use 1st Amendment to hide child sex abuse claims - Reveal News
California court guts child abuse ruling against Jehovah’s Witnesses - Reveal News
Jehovah's Witnesses' silencing techniques: as terrifying as child abuse - The Guardian
Parties of the Case
Plaintiff:
- Jane Doe*
*Plaintiff at first wished to remain anonymous, but later went public with her identity, Candace Conti.
Defendants:
- The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
- The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc.
- The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses
- Jehovah’s Witnesses on Peralta Blvd. Fremont
- Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses
- Jonathan Kendrick
- Roes 1 to 10*
*Plaintiff knew members of the Fremont congregation were involved in the case, but did not know the names of the specific individuals. Adding “Roes” to a lawsuit is standard practice when attempting to discover the identity of individuals responsible.
Timeline
Initial filing: January 28, 2011
Initial Jury Trial: May 29 - June13, 2012
Verdict: for Plaintiff (Conti)
- $7 million in compensatory damages
- $21 million in punitive damages
Appeal granted to Watchtower: August 8, 2012
Hearing scheduled: January 14, 2015
Appeals Court Decision: April 15, 2015
- Watchtower damages reduced to $2.8 million
Out of Court Settlement Reached: June 2015
Undisclosed terms of settlement
More case studies coming soon! Would you like to contribute a case study? Contact us at contribute@legallearningstudios.com
Watchtower vs. Stratton Response
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
Who is behind LegalLearningStudio.com?
On Friday, June 17, 2022 Legal Learning Studio (headquartered in Warwick, NY according to LinkedIn), did a YouTube livestream on the Watchtower v. Stratton supreme court decision. After the stream, they immediately made it private.
The video was hosted by Watchtower spokesperson Robert Hendriks and featured Watchtower lawyers Philip Brumley, Paul D. Polidoro, and Keturah A. Dunne. A featured guest was Joshua McDaniel of the Harvard Law School's Religious Freedom Clinic.
Is it a coincidence that Legal Learning Studio's LinkedIn page lists its headquarters in Warwick, NY, the same city that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is headquartered in? Is it a coincidence that a program given by Legal Learning Studio was hosted by Watchtower's official spokesman, Robert Hendriks?