Tampa federal Judge Thomas Barber asked both sides in a labor trafficking lawsuit to file 10-page answers to his question about contracts signed under duress, and they came in yesterday on deadline.
Scientology’s attorneys (representing several church subsidiaries) argue that a 2006 US Supreme Court ruling written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, should prevent Judge Barber from ruling on the issue of whether three former Sea Org workers agreed to arbitration rules under pressure.
The three former workers — Valeska Paris, and Gawain and Laura Baxter — are all residents of Australia, but they served aboard Scientology’s cruise ship the Freewinds in the Caribbean. They filed their lawsuit in April last year, alleging that they had been subjected to horrific abuse as children and adults, and that their years on the ship amounted to labor trafficking.
Scientology countered that they had signed employment contracts as adults which contained arbitration clauses, obliging them not to sue in court but to seek redress through Scientology’s own “religious arbitration.” (These agreements are not related to the Sea Org’s notorious “billion-year contract.”)
Valeska and the Baxters argued that they had been forced to sign the contracts and that they had not been allowed to read them. The agreements were signed under duress, in other words, and should not be considered valid.
Judge Barber pointed to the 2006 Scalia ruling in Buckeye which seems to suggest that if the contracts as a whole are being questioned, it should be a matter for arbitrators, not the court.
Scientology seized on this in its 10-page memo, pointing out that in their affidavits, Valeska and the Baxters were complaining about the contracts in general, and not the arbitration clauses specifically.
Defendants dispute all allegations of duress as pure fabrication. But none of the contracts at issue are freestanding arbitration agreements; all are general contracts covering Plaintiffs’ relations to Defendants that contain within them arbitration provisions. The Departure Agreements for the Baxters contain eight sections, of which only one relates to arbitration. Valeska Paris’ Departure Agreements contain 20 and 19 sections respectively, of which only part of one concerns arbitration. The Departure Agreements concern issues of confidentiality, non-disparagement, compensation, and release of claims. Yet Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants employed duress in connection with any arbitration provision in particular, but with respect to the Departure Agreements as a whole and irrespective of their content… In fact, Plaintiffs’ declarations regarding their execution of the Departure Agreements make no mention of duress exercised as to the arbitration provision in particular. For instance, Gawain Baxter declares, “I understood that if I did not sign the documents [identified as the Departure Agreements], we would have been prevented from leaving the ship….” Laura Baxter and Valeska Paris made similar statements about signing their Departure Agreements: they claim they signed the Agreements as a whole under duress, without alleging any duress in connection with obtaining consent to the arbitration provision in particular.
Scientology repeatedly makes this argument, apparently confident that if they can convince Judge Barber that Valeska and the Baxters did not single out the arbitration clauses as the thing they were under duress to sign, then the Scalia ruling will apply and Judge Barber won’t be able to rule on the duress issue. He will have no choice, Scientology says, but to grant the arbitration motions and let the arbitrators (all Scientologists in good standing) decide whether the contracts were signed under duress.
The plaintiffs argue, in their own 10-page memo, that it’s not as simple as Scientology is making it out to be, and that the Scalia ruling only applies once other conditions are met, and in this case, those conditions are not met at all.
Here, because duress “involves ‘unfair dealing at the contract formation stage,’” it is an issue of contract formation that the Court must decide….In short, the Court must decide the duress issue to determine whether the parties ever formed an agreement to arbitrate.
And even if the contracts are valid, the plaintiffs are actually only questioning the validity of the arbitration clauses, their attorneys argue.
Plaintiffs’ sole reason for raising duress is to defeat the motion to compel, so they seek only a ruling that the arbitration provisions were the product of duress; they do not ask the Court to opine on the validity of the rest of the contract. Plaintiffs’ duress challenge is thus still specific to arbitration even though it requires examining the circumstances under which the entire contract was formed.
Look, this is complex, difficult stuff, and we do not envy Judge Barber having to go through these arguments. Each side will now be asked to write short replies in response to these memos, and then Judge Barber will have to make his decision: Does he have the right to rule that these contracts were signed under duress, or will he have to let the arbitrators judge that?
It seems insane, of course, that a federal court would give up its ability to judge whether workers were treated as slaves in favor of a panel of Scientologists in good standing which will never find against the church.
But that’s what Judge Barber will be asked to consider.
Brothers Broken lands a key film festival
Geoff Levin let us know that his documentary, Brothers Broken, will be streaming in the Cinequest film festival, and showing later in the year at its physical location. (Full disclosure, your proprietor appears in the film.)
Here’s a few lines from the Mercury News about the movie: “In Geoff Levin and Lily Richard’s straightforward account, the once unbreakable bonds between two San Jose brothers — both members of a ‘60s band — get ripped apart by one sibling’s 46-year devotion to the Church of Scientology. Levin reflects on how it put a stranglehold on his life, shutting off relatives, friends and others not associated with L. Ron Hubbard’s program. The brothers’ estrangement leads to reconciliation and that reunion is one of the best parts of this scrappy little documentary.”
We could not be happier for Geoff and Robbie, and look forward to an audience finding this film.
Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:
Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history
Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea
Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time
Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology
Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain
Here’s the link to today’s post at tonyortega.org
And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning…
Excellent that the documentary is getting shown, and Yay!! for reunions when the criminal organisation known as the “church” cannot exert undue influence.
I can see this thing going up to the Supreme Court if the judge rules against the CO$. Given the incomprehensible ruling on a death penalty case a few days ago, I have no hopes for a successful resolution of the 'arbitration' under duress matter. If 4 Supremes couldn't rule correctly (yeah, my correctly) on what looks like an open and shut case on improper jury instructions, what will they rule on this trafficking case?
Good job Geoff Levin and family. Getting the $cieno story out is very much in the public interest. Rock on Wayne and Garth.