Kenneth I Johnson

Case report

• case report | facts | sources

FLOODLIT is working on updates to the information in this case report.

A settlement may exist in this case.

Ken Johnson was a Mormon church member in the Beaverton, Oregon Second Ward in the late 1980s.

” Man Sues LDS Church Claiming Abuse By Home Teacher
Associated Press/April 3, 2006

Portland, Oregon — An man who claims he was abused by a home teacher from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is suing the church for at least five million dollars.

The unnamed plaintiff accused home teacher Ken Johnson of regular and repeated sexual abuse from 1986-1988 in Beaverton.

Mormon church spokeswoman Kim Farah, at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, says church leaders learned of the incident in 2001.

She says they reported it to authorities, who declined to prosecute because so much time had passed.

She said counseling was offered to the victim and Ken Johnson was excommunicated in January 2002. Excommunicated Mormons can attend services but are barred from church positions of responsibility and from the sacraments. ”

04/01/89 Portland, Oregon

LDS Kenneth L Johnson Jr., “allegedly abused a Beaverton Boy twice a week from 1987- 1 989.” A lawsuit is filed against the LDS Church. The victims feel the Church is responsible.” ” The $45 million sex abuse lawsuit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be mediated by a judge in an effort to reach a settlement instead of going to trial. ”

“According to the Plaintiff, nicknamed D.L. for anonymity, Johnson was acting as an agent of the LDS church through its home teaching program, thereby making the church vicariously liable for the damages that Johnson caused under the doctrine of respondeat superior.8 The LDS church denies that Johnson was acting as its agent, instead stating that he visited the home as a family friend.”

The Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiff argues that, “While working in the second ward of the Beaverton Stake, and for the purpose of furthering his assigned duties as a Home Teacher, Johnson identified Plaintiff’s family as with adolescent or teenage boys; befriended the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s brother, and their family; gained the family’s trust and confidence as an educational and spiritual guide, and as a valued and trustworthy mentor to Plaintiff; gained the permission, acquiescence and support of Plaintiff’s family to spend substantial periods of time alone with the Plaintiff; and sought and gained the instruction of Plaintiff’s parents to Plaintiff that he was to have respect for authority and to comply with Johnson’s instruction and requests… The above course of conduct described…. is hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘Grooming’.. ..Johnson, while acting within the course and scope of his employment and agency using the authority and position of trust as a Home Teacher for the Defendants – through the Grooming process — induced and directed Plaintiff to engage in various sexual acts with him. …Johnson used the Grooming process to accomplish his acts of sexual molestation.

Johnson’s Grooming was (1 ) committed in direct connection and for the purpose of fulfilling Johnson’s employment and agency with the Defendants (2) committed within the time and space limits of his agency as Home Teacher (3) done initially and at least in part from the desire to serve the interests of Defendants; (4) done directly in the performance of his duties as a Home Teacher (5) was generally actions of a kind and nature which Johnson was required to perform as a Home Teacher; and (6) was done at the direction of, and pursuant to, the power vested in him by the Defendants.”

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT at 2-4, D.l. v Corporation of Bishops of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, No. 0603-03429 (2007).

“The Complaint further claims that years later Plaintiff sought the counsel of the church
when he realized he had been damaged, and they offered him counseling and
advised him that the statute of limitations for pursuing the matter had past, a false
representation that Plaintiff claims was a knowing one.” Id. at 4-5. “