1

05-4915-cv 

Doe v. Newbury Bible Church 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

August Term, 2005 

(Argued: March 13, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2007) 

Docket No. 05-4915-cv 

___________________________________________________________ 

JOHN DOE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

-v.- 

THE NEWBURY BIBLE CHURCH, THE NEWBURY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, THE 

NEWBURY BIBLE CHURCH AND SCHOOL, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

JOSEPH RINALDI, 

Defendant. 

___________________________________________________________ 

Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge; WESLEY, Circuit Judge; 

KOELTL, District Judge.1

Appeal from an order of the United States District 

Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, J.), which 

adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 

Niedermeier and granted defendants-appellees= motion for 

summary judgment. The judgment of the District Court 

granting defendants-appellees= motion for summary judgment 

is affirmed. 

 

1

 The Honorable John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2

___________________________________________________________

ERIC R. GARDNER, Keene, New Hampshire, for PlaintiffAppellant. 

GREGORY M. EATON, Aten Clayton & Eaton PLLC, Littleton, New 

Hampshire, for Defendants-Appellees. 

___________________________________________________________

PER CURIAM: 

The plaintiff-appellant John Doe (ADoe@) appeals from 

the District Court=s order dismissing his claims against the 

defendants-appellees the Newbury Bible Church, the Newbury 

Christian School, and the Newbury Bible Church and School 

(collectively, the Achurch defendants@) pursuant to the 

church defendants= motion for summary judgment. Doe sued 

the church defendants and Joseph Rinaldi, the former pastor 

of the Newbury Bible Church, alleging that he was sexually 

molested as a boy by Rinaldi. Rinaldi defaulted and is not 

a party to this appeal. 

In a prior decision, this Court found that all but one 

of Doe=s theories of liability against the church defendants 

were without merit because there is no evidence that the 

church defendants knew or had reason to know that Rinaldi 

had a propensity for sexual misconduct. Doe v. Newbury 

Bible Church, 445 F.3d 594, 595 (2d Cir. 2006). The 

remaining theory of liability on appeal is Doe=s claim that 

the Vermont Supreme Court=s decision in Doe v. Forrest, 853 

A.2d 48 (Vt. 2004) adopted the Restatement (Second) of 

Agency ' 219(2)(d) as a basis under which the church 
3

defendants could be held vicariously liable under state law. 

 

In relevant part, section 219(2) provides that A[a] 

master is not subject to liability for the torts of his 

servants acting outside the scope of their employment, 

unless ... (d) the servant purported to act or to speak on 

behalf of the principal and there was reliance upon apparent 

authority, or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by the 

existence of the agency relation.@ Restatement (Second) of 

Agency ' 219(2) (1958). In Forrest, the Vermont Supreme 

Court expressly adopted section 219(2)(d) and found that 

under section 219(2)(d) a county sheriff=s department could 

be vicariously liable for sexual misconduct by a police 

officer. Forrest, 853 A.2d at 57, 67. The court noted that 

A[w]hat makes the circumstances of this case virtually 

unique from a policy perspective is the extraordinary power 

that a law enforcement officer has over a citizen,@ but 

declined to decide whether section 219(2)(d) was applicable 

to other professions. Id. at 61, 66 n.6. 

Finding the issue to be an unresolved issue of Vermont 

law and controlling in this appeal, we certified the 

following question of state law to the Vermont Supreme 

Court: AUnder Vermont law, as expressed in Doe v. Forrest, 

176 Vt. 476, 853 A.2d 48 (2004), is a church subject to 

vicarious liability for tortious acts of its pastor under 

the Restatement (Second) of Agency ' 219(2)(d) if the pastor 
4

was allegedly >aided in accomplishing the tort by the 

existence of the agency relation= with the church?@ Newbury 

Bible Church, 445 F.3d at 597. 

The Vermont Supreme Court has answered our question in 

the negative, holding that under Vermont law section 

219(2)(d) does not apply to situations involving tortious 

acts by a pastor. Doe v. Newberry Bible Church, No. 2006-

186, 2007 WL 2068322, at & 8 (Vt. July 20, 2007). 

Therefore, the judgment of the District Court granting 

the church defendants= motion for summary judgment is 

AFFIRMED.