NJ High Court Removes National Boys and Girls Club From Child Sex Abuse Case
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled 5-2 that sex abuse allegations brought under the state’s child victims act cannot proceed against the national Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA).
The high court majority dismissed nine claims against BGCA because it determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the national organization since it is not located in New Jersey, it took no actions related to the alleged abuse, and it had no control over the local chapter where the abuse is said to have occurred.
“There is no specific personal jurisdiction over BGCA in this case because claims do not arise out of or relate to any act that BGCA affirmatively took in or directed toward New Jersey,” the high court concluded in an opinion written by Justice Rachel Wainer Apter.
The ruling does not affect the plaintiffs’ claims against the local Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County. It also does not affect the claims against the individual accused of sexual abuse.
After the state amended the Child Sexual Abuse Act in 2019 to allow survivors of child sexual abuse to bring certain actions for redress “any time before reaching” age 55, nine plaintiffs sued the Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County, the Boys and Girls Club of America, and others associated with the club for damages resulting from abuse that they allege took place between 1976 and 1984.
The plaintiffs claim that a part-time counselor at the Hudson County club sexually abused them both at club-sponsored activities and at the counselor’s apartment.
The national BGCA moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction.
It was significant to the judges in the majority that BGCA is headquartered in Georgia while the Hudson County chapter is incorporated in New Jersey. Also, although the Hudson county chapter used the BGCA name and logo, the national BGCA had little contact with or control over the local group.
Failure to Act
The plaintiffs argued that BGCA established youth serving organizations in New Jersey through its local clubs and should be subject to being sued because it failed to create and implement policies and procedures to safeguard against and prevent child sexual abuse of minors who were members of the clubs.
The state high court explained that neither it nor the U.S. Supreme Court has ever held that a failure to promulgate policies or procedures can constitute purposeful availment of jurisdiction.
The court found that BGCA did not purposefully target New Jersey in a way that connected it to the abuse. While the national group sets basic membership benchmarks, it had no operational control over the Hudson County chapter’s daily decisions regarding hiring, supervising, or firing the counselor who committed the abuse.
Justice Apter wrote that allowing a lawsuit based on failing to make a policy would mean a national group could be sued in all 50 states for any local harm. The court declined to extends personal jurisdiction that far.
“That is the opposite of specific personal jurisdiction. It is far more expansive than even general jurisdiction, absent a duty to act,” the court stated. “A court does not weigh considerations of fair play and substantial justice until it has found that the defendant has experienced sufficient minimum contacts.”
The high court noted that because that threshold was not met in this case, it did not reach the questions of fair play and substantial justice. However, it added, the plaintiffs’ claims will still be heard in New Jersey, though not against BGCA.
A vigorous dissent by Justice John Jay Hoffman, which was joined by Justice Douglas M. Fasciale, maintained that the high court was “mistaken” and the “consequences would be grave” for the plaintiffs.
“The insufficiency of BGC of America’s policies, procedures, and trainings, plaintiffs allege, led to childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a staff member from BGC of Hudson County,” Hoffman wrote.
“This Court should not abdicate its duty to provide a forum of redress for plaintiffs’ claims of almost a decade of sexual abuse when they were children. This case is not about extending jurisdiction over a national organization for every tortious act of every affiliate. Rather, it is about the failure of an organization — to which caregivers entrusted the safety of their children – to take reasonable efforts to secure their safety from childhood sexual abuse,” the dissent maintained.