The Vermont Supreme Court has upheld a law eliminating the statute of limitations for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to bring civil actions against those allegedly responsible. Recently unsealed court documents show that a lawsuit involving claims of child sexual abuse 40 years ago at a Buddhist retreat in the Northeast Kingdom is at the heart of the high court’s recent decision.
The five-member court issued its unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Paul Reiber, in June. However, at that time, the parties in the case were only referred to by their initials, leaving their identities a mystery.
That’s because a provision of the 2019 law eliminating the statute of limitations also allowed for the sealing of a complaint until a decision has been made on motions to dismiss such a case.
In July, following the high court’s ruling, the plaintiffs filed a motion to unseal the case, which is set for a hearing later this month in Caledonia County Superior criminal court in St. Johnsbury.
While the lawsuit names the plaintiff bringing the action, VTDigger does not typically identify alleged victims of sexual abuse without their consent.
The person who brought the lawsuit said in an interview Wednesday that he was elated when he learned of the Vermont Supreme Court ruling.
“Really happy, really happy,” he said of his reaction, “not just for me but it’s part of what I wanted to do in taking action, was helping other people.”
The man, who is now 55 and lives in Canada, filed the lawsuit in May 2020. The suit alleges that in 1983, when the man was 15, an adult employee of the Karme Choling Shambhala Meditation Center, which is owned by Shambhala USA lnc., sexually abused him at the Barnet retreat.
Shambhala USA is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, as is John Weber. According to the lawsuit, Weber was a Shambhala art director at the center in Barnet and was the employee who allegedly sexually abused the 15-year-old.
Lawyers for the plaintiff wrote in the lawsuit that Shambhala USA “and its subsequent entities, were founded and created to honor principles of Buddhism, but instead it, and the individuals in leadership positions, lured children and young adults through a religious pretext so they could be victimized.”
“Their victims, including the Plaintiff,” the lawyers added, “faced additional rounds of abuse in the form of shaming – since the institutions that were supposed to have protected them then ostracized and shunned them if they or their parents spoke up or took any action to report the incidents.”
According to the lawsuit, Shambhala USA, Inc., is a Vermont-registered foreign nonprofit corporation, with its principal place of business located at an approximately 700-acre Barnet parcel it has owned since the 1970s.
David Sleigh, a St. Johnsbury attorney who represents Weber, said Wednesday that his client disputes the claims against him.
“We categorically deny the allegations made by the plaintiff and we think we’ll be able to demonstrate that they’re not true and we look forward to vindicating Mr. Weber in court,” Sleigh said.
He added that the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in the case was the first time the high court had upheld the 2019 law that eliminated the statute of limitations in civil cases related to child sexual abuse.
Evan O’Brien, an attorney at the Burlington law firm Downs Rachlin Martin who is representing Shambhala USA, disputed the allegations against the organization in an emailed statement Wednesday.
“Shambhala respects the decision of the Vermont Supreme Court,” the statement read. “It denies (plaintiff’s) allegations of wrongdoing and looks forward to defending the case in court.”
The lawsuit alleges that from “its earliest days in Vermont” the Shambhala community took part in and encouraged “widespread sexual activity among multiple partners,” and that “Sex with the Guru” became a step “towards enlightenment.”
The plaintiff, according to the lawsuit, grew up in the Karme Choling community of Shambhala in Barnet, spending school vacations and summers there through his teen years until he “withdrew” from the community in 1987 at the age of 19.
In 1983, when the plaintiff was 15 years old, he was living with his mother in New York during the school year and went to the retreat in Barnet during his spring break vacation, according to the lawsuit.
On the day he arrived at the retreat, staff members had the day off, and he discovered there were no arrangements for where he should stay that night, the lawsuit states.
Later that night, Weber offered the plaintiff to stay with him in his room for the night, the lawsuit alleges. Once the teen got to the upstairs room, according to the lawsuit, he saw that it resembled a small student loft with only a single bed.
As the teen got into bed, the lawsuit alleges, Weber reached around and touched the teen’s penis and then grabbed the teen’s hand and placed it on Weber’s penis.
“(The plaintiff) was in total shock and told him ‘no’ and pulled his hand away,” according to the lawsuit.
Later, as the teen was trying to sleep, the lawsuit stated, Weber grabbed him from behind and put his hands over the teen’s shoulders and hips.
“Then (plaintiff) recalls that he blacked out for a period of time,” realizing after he “came to” that he had been sexually abused, according to the lawsuit.
“When (the teen) realized what had happened, he grabbed his clothes and ran out of the room as fast as he could,” and he had no further interaction with Weber during the rest of his spring break retreat there, the lawsuit stated.
Around 2003, the lawsuit stated, the plaintiff was “encouraged” by Shambhala officials not to go to the police.
“Instead, Shambhala offered (the man) the ‘opportunity’ to have a mediation meeting with his assailant, Weber. This is another example of Shambhala knowingly protecting its own interests and that of the perpetrators above those of victims, including when they were just children,” the lawsuit stated.
Vermont’s statute of limitations had previously allowed people to file civil court cases only up to six years after they realized their alleged childhood sexual abuse had caused personal harm. That changed in 2019 when the Legislature passed and Gov. Phil Scott signed a law doing away with that statute of limitations.
The new law also allowed survivors to bring civil claims against institutions, organizations or companies that permitted or perpetuated child sexual abuse.
The lawsuit in this case included claims against the defendants for child sexual abuse, allowing a private or public nuisance and grossly negligent supervision.
The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing in part that the law violated their due process rights under the Vermont Constitution.
Judge Mary Miles Teachout, who was presiding in Caledonia County Superior civil court, dismissed the nuisance count in 2022 but allowed the child sexual abuse and grosssly negligent supervision counts to proceed, according to court filings.
After Teachout upheld the law and allowed the two counts to move forward, the defendants filed a motion to appeal that ruling to the Vermont Supreme Court. The high court accepted the case to determine the question of whether the law violated the Vermont Constitution by “reviving long-time barred claims of childhood sexual abuse,” Reiber, the court’s chief justice, wrote in the ruling.
Shambhala’s written brief to the Vermont Supreme Court discusses the challenges defendants face in defending “time-barred” claims.
“Memories will have faded, and documents will have been lost because parties were unaware of any need to preserve evidence of innocence,” the brief stated. “Knowledgeable persons, if any, will have passed away.”
Attorney Thomas Nuovo of the law firm Bauer Gravel Farnham of Colchester, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff, argued that the high court should uphold the 2019 statute.
“This Court is without power to modify legislation, or to nullify a statute of limitations for civil actions, as this is a power reserved to the Vermont Legislature,” Nuovo wrote.
The high court upheld the 2019 law in a 14-page decision, with Reiber writing, “The Legislature created the time limit on the remedy in the first place and can remove that limit without violating” Vermont’s constitution.
Nuovo, in an interview Wednesday, said that he believed that the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling will have impacts beyond the state’s borders.
“I think the decision is not only important for Vermont but it’s also important outside of Vermont in affirming what other states are doing,” he said, adding that other states have been adopting similar legislation.
