Negligent Hiring
Negligent hiring is when a church hires an employee or appoints a volunteer without properly investigating the person’s background or confirming the information provided on their application and it is later discovered that the individual has a background indicating a propensity for misconduct. If the person commits a crime or other inappropriate behavior while acting on behalf of the church, the church could be held liable in a lawsuit.

Paul told the Ephesians, “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Paul acknowledged that it is shameful to talk about what the disobedient do in secret, adding that “Everything exposed by the light becomes visible for it is the light that makes everything visible.”

During the past twenty years misconduct by those participating in church ministry has dramatically increased. As a result, civil lawsuits and negative media attention have also increased. These incidents are devastating to the persons involved, their families, the church, the denomination, and the community. When misconduct occurs, however, church and denominational leaders often fail to deal adequately with the perpetrators. If the situation is dealt with, perpetrators are sometimes quietly removed from their positions of leadership and allowed to serve other congregations.

Consider these real life examples:

First Example:

William Michael Altman, senior pastor of Grace Christian Ministries, a nondenominational church, became involved in a sexual relationship with a parishioner with whom he was counseling for issues pertaining to being a victim of molestation as a child, as well as depression and eating disorders. Mr. Altman visited the parishioner in the hospital after a third suicide attempt. Reverend Altman confessed to church leaders and stated that the relationship was a consensual affair.

If a simple background investigation had been conducted on Michael Altman prior to his appointment as pastor, it would have revealed that he had been in prison for falsifying a $50,000 loan application. Also, a background check would have revealed that Altman was asked to resign by two former congregations.

Second Example:

While working as an associate pastor of a church in Groton, Massachusetts, in 1991, Michael Cranford was convicted of indecent assault and battery on a boy. Due to his conviction, he was barred from working for, or volunteering with, organizations that work with children under the age of 18. He subsequently moved to New Hampshire where in January 2002 he was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in Candia, New Hampshire, sometime between September 1996 and June 1997.

After learning of the case in Candia, police in Raymond, New Hampshire, began an investigation into allegations that Cranford sexually assaulted another boy of approximately 14 years of age between January 1995 and December 1996. He was eventually indicted. When these charges were filed, he was serving as an associate pastor of a church in Raymond. As can be expected, Cranford failed to tell church officials that he was a convicted sex offender in Massachusetts. The church terminated his employment upon learning of the charges.

Afterwards Michael Cranford applied to work with children in a fire department’s “Explorer” post without disclosing his conviction for sexual assault. He was later charged with prohibitions of childcare service because he continued to work with children in his position as youth pastor and with the Candia Fire Department’s Explorer program for high schoolers.

It is illustrative that the church in Raymond conducted a criminal history check in New Hampshire, which showed that Cranford had no criminal convictions in that state. Of course, this did not reveal the conviction in Massachusetts.

Situations pertaining to churches:

If the church hires a pastor or member of the pastoral staff without conducting background screening and he or she has committed sexual offences, acts of violence, or other inappropriate behavior, the church is liable because this person’s background could have been discovered with reasonable background screening.

Suppose that a secretary or custodian drives a church owned vehicle OR their personal vehicle while conducting church business, such as picking up supplies from a local merchant, and becomes involved in a traffic accident. If it is later discovered that this person had a bad driving record, the church can be liable.

Assume that a church is in the process of recruiting a youth pastor and the final successful applicant is about to be offered the position. If it becomes known that the candidate was previously convicted of sexually molesting a teenager, would this influence the decision to hire this person as the youth pastor? Of course it would. Why do churches employ paid staff and volunteers with no consideration of their backgrounds other than the information provided by the candidates? Reasonable background screening can avoid many potential problems.

Why it is important to screen church staff and volunteers:

Now more than ever before it is important for churches to make a reasonable investigation into the fitness of those they allow to participate in church ministry. This includes the senior pastor, pastoral staff, youth leaders, clerical and other support staff, custodians, and the many volunteers, such as Sunday school teachers and nursery workers.

This is a very sensitive subject because it is unpleasant for churches to think about screening potential staff. We want to trust the people we place in leadership positions, the problem is that some people are not honest, even those who profess a relationship with God. Therefore, it is the responsibility of church leaders to discover if a person’s background is not what it is purported to be.

As the previous examples illustrate, we are aware of many situations in which those who provide services at a church, both compensated and volunteer, have committed acts that are inappropriate, sinful, and sometimes even criminal.

To complicate matters even more, churches must take a close look at individuals who have committed crimes or other inappropriate behavior prior to conversion. Of course, forgiveness has been granted, but the church has no obligation to place them in leadership positions that will jeopardize the safety of others. However, depending on the pre-conversion behavior, these persons may be used in positions unrelated to the acts they committed.

Negligent Employment Decisions:

Negligent hiring and negligent retention are concepts with which church leaders must become familiar. Negligent hiring indicates that employers are responsible for their employees while they are working at the direction of the church. The church can be sued for harmful acts committed by an employee if the church failed to adequately research that employee’s background. Negligent hiring theory assumes that if the employer had investigated an employee’s past, that person’s history of anti-social or criminal behavior would have been discovered. Therefore, the employer should not have placed such an employee in a position to harm others.

Negligent hiring of staff and appointing volunteers is one of the biggest problems facing churches today and must be addressed by church leadership and religious organizations.

Negligent retention occurs when a church retains employees or volunteers after evidence was discovered that they had committed behavior that otherwise would have excluded them from employment, and they later cause harm or injury to others. Liability is created when the church retains unethical, dangerous, or otherwise unsatisfactory employees or volunteers.

Many church leaders make the mistake of ignoring problems of behavior exhibited by paid staff and volunteers in the hope they will disappear. Some even become unwitting accomplices by looking the other way, thereby condoning such behavior. Church leaders should make employment decisions based on investigation and logic rather than by “good feelings” and wishful thinking.

The Issue of Liability:

In our litigious society, businesses as well as churches have a duty to protect the congregation and staff from those who might pose a risk of harm. In addition, the church must also be concerned about the possible consequences of failing to conduct adequate background investigations of individuals they allow to participate in church ministry, again both salaried and volunteer.

This entails taking proactive steps to protect the public and prevent a successful lawsuit. Whether we like to think about the church in this way or not, the church is, after all, a business, and therefore must be operated utilizing certain business principles.

We have become aware that the number of lawsuits that have been filed against churches, clergy, and denominations as a result of sexual abuse is increasing. This is particularly a concern for churches because there is evidence that suggests that pedophiles volunteer to work in church ministries involving children in order to have an easy access to children.

It is recommended that churches consult legal counsel familiar with the relevant statutes in the states where they are situated.

Church denominational leaders and congregations can actively lessen the possibility of hiring individuals who may have the propensity for inappropriate behavior. By conducting background-screening procedures on paid and volunteer staff, the church and the denomination can decrease the risk and liability in hiring and appointing decisions. Churches can achieve a level of comfort that the people they hire or appoint are the people they say they are and are expected to be.

With respect to volunteers, many churches will select anyone who expresses an interest in working in a volunteer capacity without conducting any type of screening procedure. After all, it is sometimes difficult to attract volunteer workers, so the church does not want to insult people or make it troublesome for them to become involved in the ministries of the church. This attitude can only lead to trouble.

It helps church leaders if they think of screening procedures in terms of reducing legal risk. When a church hires or appoints workers without any screening or evaluation of candidates, this involves the highest degree of risk. The converse is also true: when a church utilizes a screening process for selecting church workers, risk is reduced.

Any screening procedure is designed to provide a safe and secure environment for the congregation. Establishing a screening procedure is a small price to pay for protecting the church from employees and volunteers who exhibit inappropriate or illegal behavior.

Background Investigation and Pre-employment Screening:

These terms, “background investigation” and “pre-employment screening,” are used for pre-employment, employment, and general screening which can assess an individual’s background and past job performance. Information gathered for a background investigation is compiled by utilizing computer databases, but personal interviews are sometimes required depending on the extent of the inquiry.

It is very important to obtain background information from the sources of the information. There are many pre-employment screening or investigative companies that provide this information, including my company, Robert Cirtin Investigations/Safe at Church. However, some companies obtain the information from a vendor whose information may be outdated or inaccurate. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the information received is from the source of that information. For example, if a criminal record search is needed in the state in which the individual resides, the search should come directly from the state. In my state, Missouri, my company obtains criminal history checks directly from the Missouri State Highway Patrol, which serves as the repository for state level criminal convictions.

Performing various screening checks is beneficial for several reasons. They will deter high-risk individuals from applying for positions in the church, and they may identify applicants with a history of inappropriate conduct. This will enable church leaders to reject them, or perhaps appoint them and provide appropriate safeguards. Also, having a screening procedure in place demonstrates to everyone in the church and denomination a concern for the safety and security of the congregation.

You may want to obtain a copy of Robert’s book, Church Safety and Security, A Practical Guide, published by CSS Publishing Company. This book contains much more information on background screening as well as many other topics relevant to the safety and security of churches and religious organizations.

You can order it online through CSS Publishing at www.csspub.com or ask for it at your local Christian bookstore.

back to top