This Chicago Scientologist dentist sexual harassed and discriminated against 18 of his employees and required workers “to engage in Scientology religious practices and learn about Scientology as conditions of their employment.”
He is being forced to fork over $462,000 to settle these claims and he is legally prohibited from engaging in these acts again. However, this consent decree doesn’t include an admission of guilt by the defendant. Why is that?
Months ago I posted here about another Scientologist dentist who was sued for forcing his office manager to attend Scientology trainings.
Tags: dentist, dentristry, Lawsuit, Scientology, settlement
Reading Tea Leaves by Randy Wilson 
January 14, 2009 at 6:24 am |
Where does it say that this person is a Scientologist???? To my knowledge he is isn’t, which makes this “article” just another piece of anti-scientology crap.
January 14, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
If he isn’t a Scientologist why is subjecting his staff to the churchs’ teachings?
January 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
Only the complaint claims that he would have done that. I think they settled on the sexual harassment and so never sorted out the “Scientology” issue in court. It’s just too easy to pin “Scientology” on something like that to get some noise going.
January 15, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
The EEOC had sued Dr. James L. Orrington in September 2007 on behalf of 10 former employees, including three who were fired by the doctor shortly after they complained to the commission.
Apart from being subjected to sexual propositions and touching on an almost-daily basis, the women were required to learn about Scientology to keep their jobs, attend Scientology seminars and watch videos in the dental office, 8244 S. Ashland Ave., according to the EEOC.
His employees further alleged that when Orrington would give employees their paychecks, he would require them to write or recite formulas that Scientologists believe help people move from a lower to a higher state of mind.
The 10 former employees filed complaints in 2005 with the EEOC, which tried to settle the complaints with Orrington before filing the lawsuit.
January 21, 2009 at 11:39 pm |
However, this consent decree doesn’t include an admission of guilt by the defendant. Why is that?
To answer your question, it is part of scientology teachings in public relations, never to admit guilt (publicly). The “church” of scientology has paid out millions to settle cases out of court, to avoid any possibility of a guilty verdict. Members must confess all of their “crimes” internally, but never admit to any crimes externally. Research the Reid Slatkin case. I don’t think he ever admitted guilt either, even though he was caught red handed, and stole millions from his victims in one of the largest ponzi schemes ever. Members are not allowed to acknowledge any negative information about their scientology or founder. Speaking negatively will get them into trouble and cost them lots of money in extra “donations” for coerced confessionals. They see any and all negative information, factual or not, as lies coming from evil people. That is why you will get such caustic responses from their members.
October 2, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
[…] have been lawsuits against owners of companies who fired employees who refused to get on board with taking these […]
October 2, 2009 at 10:33 pm |
[…] have been lawsuits against owners of companies who fired employees who refused to get on board with taking these […]
October 4, 2009 at 5:02 am |
[…] have been lawsuits against owners of companies who fired employees who refused to get on board with taking these […]