Thursday, May 24 , 2018, 9:34 am | Overcast 59º

 
 
 
 

Local News

Lawsuit Against Former Pastors, Church For Life Alleges Sexual Harassment, Assault

A Santa Maria church and the married couple that served as its lead pastors have been named as defendants in a civil lawsuit alleging Robert Litzinger employed a pattern of sexual harassment and assault against a young woman.

The lawsuit filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court in July named Church for Life, Litzinger, and Cindy Litzinger as defendants, with the woman making the allegations referred to as Jane Doe in court documents.

“This lawsuit concerns a multi-year patten of sexual harassment, sexual battery, sexual assault and gender violence practiced by defendant Litzinger upon the young women parishioners of defendant Church For Life,” according to the first amended complaint filed by attorney Jordan Porter of Santa Barbara.

Attorneys representing the Litzingers and the church denied the allegations and cited a number of defenses.

As lead pastor, Litzinger used his role to satisfy his “sexual fetishes,” the complaint alleges, contending his wife aided and abetted in excusing and protecting the conduct.

Litzinger co-founded the non-denominational church located on Skyway Drive with his wife, a fellow lead pastor. They were ousted from their duties in June 2016 when an official told a reporter from KCOY/KEYT/KKFX they entered “a restoration process” and stepped down from church leadership indefinitely.

Around the same time, he also resigned from his appointed position as a Santa Maria Recreation and Parks Commission member.

Jane Doe, a fictitous name to preserve her privacy, her attorney said, is seeking monetary and punitive damages totaling more than $25,000 in the lawsuit alleging sexual battery, sexual harassment, sexual assault, gender violence and negligence.

The lawsuit alleges church officials “turned a blind eye toward defendant Litzinger’s teachings in its ‘purity’ classes and pre-marriage courses for years." 

Litzinger allegedly sought and sent intimate photos to the plaintiff, persisting when she hesitated, and pushed for information about her sexual relations with her husband. Litzinger's pictures became increasingly graphic, the lawsuit added.

At one point, he sent pictures of himself and his wife covered in bed with a note that “they just had a great session.”

During home meetings, he would give what the plaintiff called “Mom and Dad snuggles,” and “Dad back rubs” while praying, the lawsuit contends.

However, the plaintiff alleges Litzinger pushed boundaries, eventually groping her breasts and genitals.

She complained to Cindy Litzinger, who called the alleged incidents “an innocent mistake.”

"Nevertheless, (Robert) Litzinger’s conduct continued, and each time plaintiff found herself frozen in shock, confusion, fear and disbelief,” the complaint said. 

When the married woman became pregnant, Litzinger pressed for a nude photo like those involving celebrities in Vanity Fair where the private areas are covered but the pregnancy bump is emphasized.

“Litzinger then told plaintiff he had looked at one of her photos to help him ‘finish,” the complaint said. “Plantiff was shocked, confronted Litzinger about lusting after her, but LItzinger denied on the basis of the strength of his Christian belief.”

In March 2016, Litzinger shared his favorable views of pornography in a pre-marital counseling class, sparking an investigation by the church, the complaint noted.

This led Jane Doe to discover that she was not alone in complaints against Litzinger, and that more than a dozen women had similar experiences. 

The conduct led Jane Doe to suffer humiliation, stress, depression and other mental harm so she seeks compensatory and punitive damages in addition to court costs, the lawsuit noted.

In a response to the complaint, Litzinger’s attorney, Paul Greco, denied the allegations, citing 16 defenses including bad faith and consent.

“Plaintiff’s claims, and each of them, are barred by the fact that they are frivolous, designed to harass and annoy defendant, and are not brought in good faith,” the answer said. 

His response also contends the woman consented to the alleged conduct involving Litzinger. 

Litzinger is seeking to recover his attorney’s fees. 

Church For Life’s attorneys, James Hayes from Daley & Heft of Solana Beach, also denied the allegations.

The church contends Jane Doe shares some of the blame. The attorney asked if the church is found negligent, she also should be assessed a degree of fault, with any monetary award reduced appropriately.

Cindy Litzinger’s attorney, Matthew Volkman from Severson & Werson of San Francisco, attempted to get her removed from facing punitive and exemplary damages, saying the facts were insufficient to show she engaged in the conduct alleged in the lawsuit.

However, the judge denied the motion filed by her attorney. 

The case returns to Judge Timothy Staffel’s courtroom in May.

Noozhawk North County editor Janene Scully can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Supporter

Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >