Entertainment

Scientology Tries to Prevent Danny Masterson Rape Accusers from Suing Church

NOT AGAIN

The church wants a religious arbitration clause in their member contract that prohibits defectors from taking legal action against them to be enforced.

danny_masterson_k7cp8j
LUCY NICHOLSON/Getty Images

The Church of Scientology is attempting to stop four women who accused actor and member Danny Masterson of rape from suing the church over claims that the organization harassed and stalked them.

Through a 144-page petition filed Tuesday, the church asked the U.S. Supreme Court to help enforce the religious arbitration clause in its member contract by overturning a California Appeals court ruling that held that the accusers were no longer bound by the contract because they had left the church.

The arbitration clause in the church’s contract prohibits members from taking legal action against the organization and instead forces members to go through a church-led conflict-resolution process.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Individuals have a First Amendment right to leave a religion. We hold that once petitioners had terminated their affiliation with the Church, they were not bound to its dispute resolution procedures to resolve the claims at issue here, which are based on alleged tortious conduct occurring after their separation from the Church and do not implicate resolution of ecclesiastical issues,” the ruling reads.

The church is arguing religious discrimination, saying that the ruling violates its First Amendment rights.

“The Opinion weaponizes the First Amendment against religious freedom, holding that the First Amendment requires limitations applicable only to religious—and not to secular—arbitration agreements,” the petition reads.

GettyImages-176560285_cysowi

The cast of That ’70s Show, including Danny Masterson (top, center).

FOX

The original harassment suit was filed in August 2019 by four women, who accused Masterson of raping them, according to documents published in March 2017 by a journalist.

The women argue that the defendants—Masterson, the Church of Scientology, and church leader David Miscavige—stalked and harassed them to intimidate them from pressing rape charges against Masterson. The claims include that church members hacked their email and security systems, killed their pets and threatened to murder them, all of which the church has denied.

Masterson himself has repeatedly denied the rape allegations, and he will stand trial next month for the alleged sexual assault of three women, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. The District Attorney’s Office also said it did not file charges in two other cases because one lacked evidence and the other was past the statute of limitations.

Masterson found fame playing Steven Hyde in That ’70s Show before reuniting with former co-star Ashton Kutcher on The Ranch, which he was fired from amid the sexual abuse allegations.

In the appellate ruling, the court found that the “Constitution forbids” attempting to force the women to adhere to a church contract after they were no longer considered members.

“In effect, Scientology suggests that one of the prices of joining its religion (or obtaining a single religious service) is eternal submission to a religious forum—a sub silentio waiver of petitioners’ constitutional right to extricate themselves from the faith. The Constitution forbids a price that high,” the ruling reads.

Although the church first asked the appellate court to reconsider and then the state supreme court, their requests were denied, Variety reports. They instead claimed the appellate ruling, which is unpublished and therefore not considered law in other California court cases, threatens religious arbitration for any church.

The accusers’ attorney in the appellate court, Marci Hamilton, told Variety in an email that the petition holds no water because of the appellate ruling’s unpublished status.

“The Church is seeking to overturn a decision from a state Supreme Court that is unpublished and therefore not precedential,” Hamilton said. “This is a procedural posture that [the] Court would never take. They have nothing to review.”