An unusual legal battle around exorcism has been recently reported by the media in the United States. A man was employed as a receptionist by a well-known hotel chain, and was unfortunate enough to be going through a divorce at the time he started his job. Instead of being quietly supportive in a more conventional way (e.g. offering a listening ear or making him the occasional coffee), his manager concluded that his marital problems were most likely caused by demons, and she pressured him to fill in a questionnaire, which demanded information ranging from the intrusive to the offensive, and even the downright bizarre. For instance, it implied that any association with “Eastern Religions”, homosexual desires or kitchen knick-knacks with witches on them were all risk factors for possession. Furthermore, he was asked about the circumstances of his conception (questions included: “Were you a planned child?” and “Were you conceived out of wedlock?”) and even directly inquired “Have you ever made a pact with the devil?”
Understandably, the employee was reluctant to cooperate with all of this, and his manager responded by punishing him, changing his shift pattern and arriving with friends from her church to forcibly pray over/exorcise him whilst at work. Sometimes, these bewildering steps even took place in front of hotel guests, which must have been embarrassing and distressing to say the very least. It is hardly surprising that the saga ended with an action for religious discrimination, the worker asserting that he was being unfavourably treated for not sharing his manager’s beliefs. Although the outcome of the case is not yet known, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the hotel’s lawyers will be keen to reach a settlement.
It should not be overlooked that the greater cultural familiarity with exorcism in parts of the US, strongly influenced by Pentecostal Christianity, gives rise to a generally more lenient stance in relation to exorcists facing claims. Remarkably, an action for trespass to the person failed in the Pleasant Glade case in 2008 (referenced below), even though the victim had been physically restrained and subjected to an exorcism against her will. The appellate court ruled that in becoming a member of a Church which regularly cast out demons, she was deemed to have given a general consent to such rites, and this could only be revoked if she renounced her membership. Not surprisingly, this judgment has been heavily criticised by American and international commentators alike. Undoubtedly, it goes way beyond what might be thought necessary to protect freedom of religion, as it has long been crystal clear that Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation” does not (and must not) grant faith groups a general immunity from suit in tort, and clearly, if you slip over a cracked paving stone in a synagogue car-park in any US state, they will be as much liable as the supermarket next door. To suggest that Churches must be able to carry out unhindered exorcisms on anyone within a community, regardless of their expressed objections, seems somewhat baffling. After all, if someone joins a karate club and discovers that they dislike the sport, nobody would seriously suggest that it would be lawful to carry on throwing the person to the ground for as long as they remained in the building, regardless of their pleas to stop.
Yet even in light of the court’s generosity towards exorcists in Pleasant Glade, the hotel-manager in the present case surely went a step too far. This was an individual at work in a secular job, who simply wished to be free of having religious beliefs and practices foisted upon him, particularly in public, and with the expectation of intimate personal disclosures thrown in. It goes without saying, that the rights of this employee to religious liberty and privacy cannot possibly be trumped by the rights of his manager to inflict her faith on an unwilling victim, and it seems highly unlikely that their employer would wish to assert in court that such behaviour was justifiable. Where there may be some blurred lines around consent and exorcism in some US states, there can be little doubt that this case was over the line. In fact, to quote a well-known American sit-com Friends “You’re so far past the line, you can’t even see the line. The line is a dot to you!”
Related Articles
Eastern Kentucky Man Sues Hampton Inn (WKYT 29/3/19)
Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2008)
