The following legal document contains allegations of sexual abuse by Swami Kriyananda, aka J. Donald Walters, founder of Ananda, known as the Ananda Church of Self-Realization. The Ananda Awareness Network's primary goal is to provide alternative information about Ananda, the Ananda Church of Self-Realization and Swami Kriyananda, aka J. Donald Walters. AAN believes information and alternative views should be available to those who wish, so a more fully informed choice can be made about one's current or future relationship with Ananda. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Plaintiff, vs. ANANDA CHURCH OF SELF REALIZATION, a California not-for-profit corporation; CRYSTAL CLARITY PUBLISHING, a California corporation; DANNY defandant, individually and ) as an employee of CRYSTAL CLARITY PUBLISHING and/or ANANDA CHURCH OF SELF REALIZATION; DONALD J. WALTERS, individually, and an employee of ANANDA CHURCH OF SELF REALIZATION and CRYSTAL CLARITY PUBLISHING; DOES 1 to 50; Case No. 390 230 PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Date: June 17, 1997 Time: 9:00 Dept: Law & Motion Discovery cut off: July 28, 1997 Trial Date: September 29, 1997 I. Introduction: Defendant Ananda Church ("Ananda") has moved for summary adjudication as to the first and second causes of action of the second amended complaint. Ananda does not deny that conduct constituting sexual harassment took place. Instead, it contends that it has no liability for such conduct on the sole ground that it is specifically excluded from the reach of the statute. It claims that it is not an "employer" inasmuch as it describes itself as a "religious association or corporation not organized for private profit." Ananda's motion must be denied. Before it can annex to itself the extraordinary protections accorded to bonafide religion, it must show that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the beliefs for which it seeks protection are truly and sincerely held. Under the facts of this case, Ananda cannot make such a showing because while it may preach celibacy and sexual restraint, for decades it has fostered and promoted on an ongoing and repeated basis the sexual exploitation of young women by it's leader, James Donald Walters. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS There is a triable issue of fact whether or not Ananda Church is a bonafide religious organization. As part of obtaining its nonprofit religious status from the IRS it held itself out as having celibacy be its core belief and practice. A. Celibacy Is Represented To The Internal Revenue Service As The Core Belief And Practice Of Ananda Church Upon Which Its Non Profit Religious Status Is Predicated. Ananda was formed to teach and promote the practice of yoga. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.1 ) Thomas Oesterle was secretary/treasurer of Ananda Church from 1989-1994. He interacted with the Internal Revenue Service in an effort to obtain a private letter ruling that Ananda Church qualified as a non-profit religious organization. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.2) In the July 26, 1991 letter that Ananda received from the Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit religious corporation it was confirmed "The vow of self-control requires members to hold physical self-pleasure in check and to direct their energy to the soul." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.3) The letter confirmed that "members of the order live within the order's strict set of rules as set forth by their superiors' directives within the order." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.4) The letter confirmed that "the order in this case is not a separate legal entity from the church. PG 2 Order is directly under the control and supervision of church, which in turn draws it's leadership and management exclusively from order membership. (Separate Statement of Fact No.12.5) The letter confirmed that "the vows of self-control, cooperative obedience, and service, as well as adherence to the many restrictive rules of the order demonstrate the moral and religious discipline of members." (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.6) If the "purposes, character, or method of operation [of Ananda] is changed" it can effect Ananda's tax exempt status. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.7) B. The Belief And practice Of Kriya Yoga Advocates Celibacy As The Method of Personal Development. Jyotish John Novak, one of the original organizers of Ananda, is on the board of directors of defendant Ananda Church as well as its vice-president, head of the ministry office and along with Swami and his wife was one of the members of its spiritual directorate. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.8) Defendant Swami Kriyananda Walters conferred the right on Jyotish to administer Kriya Yoga." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.9) The technique of "Kriya Yoga" is Ananda's "most sacred technique." (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.10) Plaintiff was a student of Kriya Yoga, a "Kriyaban." (Separate Statement of Fact No.l2.11) Kriya Yoga is based on the belief that its goal is to raise one's "life force" or "prana" from the base of the spine at the genitals up through the spine through the cerebral cortex and medulla oblongata out through the Christ center and direct it to God."(Separate Statement Fact No.12.12) Thus, Kriya Yoga does not believe in releasing the life force through the genitals, instead seeking to bring the life force up through the "higher chakras." ."(Separate Statement Fact No.12.13) Thus, which means members should be restricting sexual relations and directing their energy to the soul." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.14) PAGE 3: C. Engaging In Sex With "Kriyabans" Is Not Within Ananda's Corporate Purpose: For Walters to have sex with devotees is beyond the scope of the corporate purpose (Ex. 1-Oesterle Depo. 87:5-88:7) and religious practice at Ananda Church. (Separate Statement of Fact No. 12.15) Jyotish refused to answer whether to reverse the process of Kriya Yoga would corrupt a devotee and betray the goal of Kriya Yoga. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12. 16) D. Swami Walters Has Historically Used His Authority As Spiritual Director Of Ananda And The Fiduciary Relationship Of Counselor To Obtain The Sexual Services Of Young Female Ananda Followers Known As "Kriyabans:" Defendant Walters, also known as "Swami Kriyananda," is the founder and spiritual director of Ananda Village in Nevada City. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.17) In 1955 Donald Walters took lifetime monastic vows of poverty and chastity, (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.18) When Walters took said monastic vows in 1955, he became a "swami" which meant that he was "chaste" and "celibate." (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.19) Starting at least in the late 1960's Walters repeatedly abused the trust of young female Ananda devotees reposed in him for the purpose of his own individual selfish sexual gratification. Indeed, Walters is "on the most destructive, predatory end of the spectrum" of clergy sex offenders who repeatedly and deliberately "seeks vulnerable women to exploit for his own sexual gratification. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.20) Walters admits under oath that in 1969 while he was a "swami" to whom XXX Slavonic had come for "spiritual training," he had sexual intercourse with her to whom he referred as his "disciple." (Separate Statement Of Fact No. 12.21) Walters admits under oath that in 1981 in Hawaii he had sexual intercourse with Woman #3 while she still was married to and living with her husband. Walters characterized this seduction of her subsequent pursuit as something that was "spiritual." (Separate Statement of Fact No.12.22) Walters admits under oath that in 1981 or 1982 he had sex with Woman #1 and Woman #2 together at the same time. (Separate Statement of Fact No. 12.23) Walters admits under oath that on at least eight occasions when he asked her to massage him, Woman #1 masturbated him to ejaculation as his sexual servant. Walters admits that Woman #1 masturbated him countless times short of ejaculation. Walters was Woman #1's counselor. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.24) Walters admits PAGE 4; under oath being naked and having Woman #2, who was in spiritual training at Ananda massage him with oil. Her massage routine included sexually servicing Walters by masturbating him to ejaculation. Walters admits to having sexual intercourse with her as well as a method of "trying to cure" himself from his relationship with Woman #3. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.25) Walters has admitted having sex with SW and KD for many years. He has admitted that he has "sexual problems." (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.26) Ananda devotee EB has admitted that she is sexually intimate with Swami Walters. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.27) During a spiritual counseling session regarding defendant minister defendant relentless sexual attentions toward her, the Swami massaged plaintiffs neck and placed her face on his hardening penis. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.28) Ananda leader, Jyotish Novak, admitted that it would probably be better if Kriyananda admitted his sexual problems." (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.29) E. In Addition To Preaching The Benefits Of Kriya Yoga While Practicing Promiscuous Sex. Walters Fraudulently Held Himself Out As A Celibate Religious Leader By Referring To Himself As "Swami" Kriyananda And Wearing The Ochre Robes Of A Monastic Renunciant: Defendant Walters defined a "swami," as a man "vowed to renunciation, including the practice of celibacy." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.30) At the Ananda community Walters would wear the orange robes of a monastic renunciate. (Separate Statement of Fact No. 12.31) Walters never told the Ananda community that he engaged in sexual relationships with female Ananda devotees. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.32) To his public at Ananda Walters said that the declarations of Woman #3, Woman #1, Woman #2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, and DK were 95 percent false. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.33) in discovery, Ananda Church failed to produce a letter written to PAGE 5 Walters on March 25, 1995 by A C, Monastic Training Program in which she states: "When I visited Ananda in 1970 before moving here, I remember Gurupod saying, not as rumor, but more as information he'd heard directly from you, something like: Swami was teaching yoga in the cities but had to pull back because he was having problems with sexual energy. I understood him as meaning, not just temptation, but sexual practice.... Over the years I've wondered about it. Also, over the years women have said things to me, or I've overheard, or I've seen interactions between you and others that went along with that statement of Gurupod's. ... I know you probably feel that the women involved shared in your choice, since you are always respectful of people and genuinely kind. Still, the fact is ... you are our teacher, and any woman would have to be confused by having sex with their spiritual teacher." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.34) The highest officials in the Ananda organization, Jyotish John Novak, Devi Novak, Vidura Jon Smallen, Thomas Oesterle and Catherine Peroginog are not willing to confront Swami Walters regarding his sexual use of female Kriyabans and ask him about it. Without so inquiring or conducting any investigation at all, they take Walters' word for it and instead indiscriminately condemn Woman #3, Woman #1, Woman #2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, and DK as incredible because each had been "hysterical" "unstable" and "lied" about Walters' sexual interactions with them. (Separate Statement Fact No.l2.35) The Ananda officials conducted no investigation into Swami Walters misconduct. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.36) Instead, they wrote a letter to the Kriyabans in the Ananda community the members of whom had taken vows of obedience in which they stated that the declarations of the women regarding Walters' sexual use of them were "lies and distortions" and should not be read. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.37) Indeed, Spiritual Director Devi Novak knew that the letter which is Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 56 would be distributed to young women who had sought counseling for relationship problems. (Separate Statement Fact No, 1 2.3 8) Despite Walters' admissions that he had engaged in sex acts with Woman #3, Woman #1, Woman #2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, no Ananda official made any effort to inform Ananda members and trainees that Walters had been sexually serviced by any unstable woman or other devotee.(Separate Statement Fact No.12.39) PAGE 6 Spiritual Director Jyotish Jon Novak believes that plaintiff allegation that Walters has engaged in an ongoing, systematic pattern of exploitation, harassment and coercion of women is a lie. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.40) Spiritual Director Devi Novak never thought that Anne Marie plaintiff wanted to tell the truth so that other young female trainees would know that the swami was sexually serviced by parishioners. Instead, she though Anne Marie was trying to destroy Ananda. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.41) Indeed, despite Walters' sworn admissions that the declarations were in large part true, Spiritual Director Jyotish Jon Novack believes that the declarations of Woman #3, Woman #1, Woman #2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, and DK were an attack on Ananda by Satan. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.42) He believes that even if the declarations of Woman #3, Woman #1, Woman #2, Woman #4, Woman #5, Woman #6, and DK were true no one would have a duty to expose Walters' conduct. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.43) Spiritual Director Jyotish Jon Novak cannot conceive that Walters may be sick. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.44) Prior to the instant lawsuit, the issue of sex between Swami or Ananda ministers and devotees was never discussed by Ananda officials. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.45) The only thing that was ever discussed was how to protect Ananda ministers from unfair charges of sexual abuse as those by AMB (plaintiff). (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.46) G. Walters Exercises Absolute Control Over Ananda Church With Respect To Which He Has An Alter Ego Relationship "Above all leader at Ananda is the Spiritual Director," defendant Walters. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.47) Ananda is governed by the Spiritual Directorate consisting of Swami Walters, Jyotish Novak and Devi Novak. Jyotish Novak was Walters "right-hand man from the beginning." Jyotish and Devi liaison between Walters and the Ananda community. (Separate Statement Fact No. 12.48) Walters directs the Spiritual Directorate. It decides who will be ministers and makes personnel decisions such as the demoting of Anandi Cornell after she wrote Walters a letter criticizing him for his history of using female Ananda devotees to sexually PAGE 7 service himself. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.49) Ananda members take the following oath: "As a means of attaining Self-realization, I offer my cooperative obedience and loyalty to Ananda, to those members who are responsible for guiding the community in its various aspects, and, above all, to the living representative of the Ananda line of gurus, the Spiritual Director of Ananda World Brotherhood Village." Defendant Walters is the "living representative" and "Spiritual Director." (Separate Statement Fact No.l2.50) Elizabeth XXX testified that cooperative obedience "means doing God's will and that God's will was that she should not read the declarations of the women whom Swami had sexually service him, (Separate Statement Fact No.12.51) Those who guide the community are Jyotish and Devi Novak, and Vidura and Durga Smallen. Walters made them, and others, a superior form of minister, "Lightbearers," without advance notice in a mass ceremony. As Walters testified, it is a "flexible set up." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.52) Ananda members are required to follow the "Rules of Conduct for Members." (Separate Statement Fact No.12.53) Per the Rules, failure to manifest the proper attitude can result is being moved out of Ananda Village. The Rules also require payment of money in order to construct a home which, if the person wants to move, will be repaid at whatever amount the "community" decides. Once a member has been fully accepted into the community, he loses any right to be paid for the value of his home. Jobs are controlled "by the appointed representatives of the community" as is the decision to marry. (Separate Statement Fact No.12.54) III. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION MUST BE DENIED A. There Is A Question Of Fact Whether Or Not Ananda Is A Bony Fide Religion The First Amendment does not immunize a self-proclaimed religion from governmental authority or cloak it in utter secrecy. When an organization's religious status is of legal significance, courts may make an objective inquiry into whether the organization's beliefs are entitled to First Amendment religious liberty protections. (See, Wisconsin vs. Yoder (1972) 406 PG. 8 U.S. 205, 209-13; Canhuell v. Connecticut (1940)310 U.S. 296.) While it is axiomatic that courts may not determine whether a given belief is or is not religion (U.S, v. Ballard(1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86-88), the trier of fact may determine whether a belief is truly held without violating the First Amendment. (United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 184 [13 L.Ed.2d 733].) In United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, the Supreme Court defined religious beliefs meriting First Amendment protection as those "based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate and upon which all else is ultimately dependent." (Id. 380 U.S. at 176.) The Seeger court required that these beliefs be "sincere" (Ibid,) and stated that "the threshold question of sincerity must be resolved in every case." (Id. 380 U.S. at 185.) Pursuant to this 'sincerity" standard, courts have not been willing to accept bare assertions by litigants that their beliefs or conduct are "religious." (See, e.g., Yoder, 406 U,S. at 235 ["Aided by a history of three centuries as an identifiable religious sect and a long history as a successful and self- sufficient segment of American society, the Amish in this case have convincingly demonstrated the sincerity of their religious beliefs, the interrelationship of belief with their mode of life, and the vital role that belief and daily conduct play in the continued survival of. . . their religious organization...."] International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (1981) 650 F.2d 430, 439-41 ["an adherent's belief would not be sincere if he acts in a manner inconsistent with that belief. . . or if there is evidence that the adherent materially gains by fraudulently hiding secular interests behind a veil of religious doctrine."]; United States v. Rasheed (9th Cir. 1981) 663 F.2d 843, 84749 [alleged religious belief in "Dare To Be Rich" program not sincerely held because palpably deceitful]; Jones v. Bradley (9th Cir. 1979) 590 F.2d 294, 295 [proper for court to reach question whether organization is a religion]; United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439, 443 ["Those who seek the constitutional protections for their participation in an establishment of religion and freedom to practice its beliefs must not be permitted the special freedoms this sanctuary may provide merely by adopting religious nomenclature and cynically using it as a shield to protect them when participating in antisocial conduct that otherwise stands condemned."]; Yarr Schaick v, Church of Scientology of California (D,Mass. 1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125; Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 212, cert. PG 9 denied 396 U.S. 963 (1969).) In Thsriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1975) 391 F.Supp. 578, 580 the court indicated that criminal conduct by the members of a purported religion caused it to "employ sharp and careful scrutiny of his activities, including his claim of religious sincerity." The Supreme Court has warned against anything but the most cautious review and exacting scrutiny when conferring entitlement of religious status because the "absolute protection afforded belief by the First Amendment suggests that a court should be cautious in expanding the scope of that protection since to do so might leave government powerless to vindicate compelling state interests." (McDaniel v. Poly (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 627, n. 7.) Founding Church of Scientology v. United Slates (D.C. Cir. 1969) 409 F.2d 1 1 46 noted that "[l]itigation of the question whether a given group or set of beliefs is religious is a delicate business, but our legal system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not be unjustly enjoy the immunities granted to the sacred." (Id. 409 F.2d at 1160.) The court concluded that a purported religion would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment upon a showing that ". ..the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good / faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were created for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protection of a religion." (Id, at 1 162.) Thus, a "sincere religious belief is a prerequisite to any free exercise claim." (Sourbeer v. Robinson (3d Cir, 1986) 791 F.2d 1094, 1102; Martinelli v. Dugger (Il'h Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 1499, 1503-1504; PhilbrooR v. Ansonia Board of Education (2d Cir. 1985) 757 F.2d 476, 481- 482.) The cases make clear that the underlying rationale for the threshold determination of sincerity or bonafides is a necessary and "rational means of differentiating between those beliefs that are held as a matter of conscience and those that are animated by motives of deception and fraud. The latter variety, of course, must be subject to governmental invasion, lest our society abjure from distinguishing between the incantation of sincerely held religious beliefs' as a talisman for self-indulgence or material gain and those beliefs genuinely dictated by conscience. Sincerity analysis is exceedingly amorphous, requiring the fact finder to delve into the claimants most veiled motivations and vigilantly separate the issue of sincerity from the fact finder's perception of the religious nature of the claimant's beliefs. This need to dissever is most acute where unorthodox beliefs are implicated. PG 10 There, the fact finder's temptation to merge sincerity and verity is as great as the need to guard against this conjugation. Accordingly, assessing a claimant's sincerity of belief demands a full exposition of the facts and the opportunity for the fact finder to observe the claimant's demeanor during direct and cross-examination. A more cursory evaluation raises the specter that the sincerity issue was decided by reference to the fact finder's perception of what a religion should resemble." (Patrick v. LeFevre (2d Cir. 1984) 745 F.2d 153, 157, emphasis added.) Thus, simply because an organization calls itself a religion does not necessarily means that it is such. Indeed, whether or not the organization is a religion, when contested, is a trial question (FVollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989)212 Cal.App.3d 872, 887 [260 Cal.Rptr. 3313 [whether or not Scientology is a religion "remains a very live and interesting question."l) inasmuch as qi]n determining whether [claimant's] beliefs are to be accorded first amendment protection, the fact finder must delve into the internal workings of [claimant's] mind and assess the credibility of his claims." (Patrick v. LeFevre, supra 745 F.2d at 159.) The case upon which defendant Ananda Church relies in seeking to fall within the exclusion of liability for sexual harassment of plaintiff predates Seeger and its constitutionally based progeny. Nonetheless, in Fellowship humanity v. County of Alameda (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 673 1315 P.2d 394, 406], one hears a foreshadowing of the concern about persons "cynically using [religious status] as a shield to protect them when participating in antisocial conduct that otherwise stands condemned." (United Stares v Kuch, supra, 288 F.Supp. at 443.) The California Court of Appeal stated: "Thus, the only inquiry in such a case is the obj ective one of whether or not the belief occupies the same place in the lives of its holders that the orthodox beliefs occupy in the lives of believing majorities, and whether a given group that claims the exemption conducts itself the way groups conceded to be religious conduct themselves. . . . Of course, the belief cannot violate the laws or morals of the community.... (Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, supra, 315 P.2d at 406.) Under the facts of the Instant case, and applying the sincerity analysis thereto, it is clear that there is an issue of fact as to whether or not Ananda is entitled to the extraordinary protections of the First Amendment as well as an an exemption from what appears to have been a systematic sexual abuse and exploitation of women. On these causes of action summary adjudication should be denied. PG 11 A. The Religious Corporation Is A Mere Sham For The Swami. To establish alter ego liability, Ms. plaintiff needs to show that(l)there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow. Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300. "The purpose behind the alter ego doctrine is to prevent defendants who are the alter egos o a sham corporation from escaping personal liability for its debts." Hennessey's Tavern v. American Air Filter (1988) 204 Cal.Agp.3d 1351, 1358. "There is no litmus test to determine when the corporate veil will be 1 pierced; rather, the result will depend on the circumstances of each particular case." Mid- Century Ins. Co. v. Gardner (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1212. Both prongs of the test are met here . One of the hallmarks of alter ego is the unorthodox handling of corporate funds between the corporation and the individual. First, the swami owns most or all of the shares in the corporation, and, although there are two other board members, both are dominated entirely by swami. Second, swami has ignored all corporate formalities by commingling his personal and corporate funds. The head of Crystal Clarity Publishers, the d/b/a for Ananda, testified that although the swami received money from Crystal Clarity, there were no contracts, royalties, written obligations, corporate resolutions or minutes reflecting corporate authorization to pay the swami any money. Swami received 10% of Crystal Clarity's gross monthly income as a "tithe" to "Crystal Hermitage," swami's residence. McGilloway then wrote checks from Crystal Hermitage account to the swami's personal account. Only McGilloway, her husband and swami had signatory control over the Crystal Hermitage account. Although she claimed that Crystal Clarity paid "loans" back to swami, McGilloway , she never saw any documents purporting to reflect personal loans from the swami to the corporation. McGilloway also transferred money from the Ananda general account to the swami's personal accounts. She dots not remember seeing any corporate minutes or authorization for those transfers. Swami also received money from the "tithe" account, called "Thank You God," a percentage of the general church fund was also paid to Crystal Hermitage. She then transferred PG 12 funds without any corporate direction, Thus, it seems clear, and all inferences must be drawn in Ms. plaintiff favor, that the Swami and Ananda had a unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual became merged. (Separate Statement No. f2.22 Establishing the second prong is simple. "The essence of the alter ego doctrine is that justice be done". Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 301. A grave ~injustice will be done if the Court does not disregard the corporate entity, since it is possible that the sham corporation may be exempt from FEHA. As the court is Las Palmas Assoc. v. Las Palmas Center (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 122 "it would be unfair to permit those who control companies to treat them as a single or unitary enterprise and then assert their corporate separateness in order to commit frauds and misdeeds with impunity." Id, at 1249. For the purposes of summary judgment, this Court must assume that these facts give rise to an alter ego claim, and thus for this reason the FEHA exemption does not apply because it is Welters who is truly liable. C. The Alleged Exemption Violates The Equal Protection Clause The equality guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause is equality under the same conditions, and among persons similarly situated. Although the Legislature may make reasonable classification of persons and businesses, the classification must not be arbitrary, and must have a substantial relation to a legitimate object to be accomplished, 8 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Constitutional Law, 599, p. 51. The alleged exemption does not pass constitutional muster under either standard of deference set forth in Board of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 903, 913. The of fundamental right in this case is the right to redress. Under the strict judicial scrutiny test, an exemption which prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace for all corporations other than religious corporations has no relation to promoting the compelling state interest of preventing sexual harassment. Moreover, even under the "minimum rationality" test, it is illogical to only permit sexual harassment by non- PG 13 profits, while prohibiting such conduct for all others. Accordingly, even if Ananda is not the swami's alter ego, the exemption is unconstitutional. IV. THE BATTERY CLAIM IS NOT UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW Because Ms. plaintiff was coercively persuaded and utterly dominated mentally by the defendants until November, 1994, a question of fact exists as to both her consent and the Knowing of the statute of limitations. Moreover, as set forth above and in the Greene Decl., a continuance under Code Civ. P. ~ 437c01) is mandatory. A claim for battery must describe a harmful contact and a resulting harm, such as emotional distress. (WeinstocR v. Eissler (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 212, 237.) Although consent is defense, it may be vitiated by fraud. (See Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 940.) The facts in this action are practically identical to those in Rains, except that the "Swami"- disciple relationship substitutes for the Rains doctor-patient relationship. In Rains, psychiatric patients sued a group of psychiatrists for physically violent treatment which had been represented as a necessary part of a medical cure. The Court found that the patients stated a claim for fraud against the psychiatrists because the psychiatrists      "used the program as a pretext to employ psychological coercion, humiliation, and physical      violence to subjugate plaintiffs, to coerce plaintiffs to remain in the residential program, to      serve defendants for no compensation, to give defendants donations, to recruit new patients,      and to believe their well-being depended upon remaining in the program and loyally serving      defendants to the exclusion of the outside world." (Rains, 150 Cal.App.3d at 936,) Because the doctors misrepresented and the patients were "coercively persuaded" that the physical abuse was "necessary" to attain the promised cure', the Court found that no true or informed consent could have occurred and a cause of action for battery was stated. Id. Consent can be vitiated by fraud as to the identity or capacity of the The specific misrepresentations in Rains were that if the respective plaintiffs enrolled in the defendant doctors' program, the patients would be cured and transformed into a successful person within a period of six months to one year. (Id. at 937.) As a result, plaintiffs alleged that they were "forcibly persuaded into becoming loyal and dedicated followers of defendants, and did believe that personal survival depended on remaining in defendants organizations and treatment, and did believe they should not return to the outside world." (Id.) PG 14 actor, e.g., a physician's touching under the guise of "necessity" is non-offensive while a fake physician's touching would t~e offensive. (150 Cal.App.3d at 938-39, 941; see also Bartell v. Stale (1900) 106 Wis. 342 [82 N.W. 142], [battery where "magnetic healer" required an 18-year old girl to disrobe, sit on lap and a flow sexual fondling not a "necessary" treatment as represented].) As in Rains, Anne-Marie did not consent to any sexual battery by "Swami" Walters as "Swami" Walters' identity and capacity as a "swami" and the reasons for her "treatment" through the Ananda Church had been misrepresented to her. Anne-Marie was coercively persuaded to Submit to the authority of the Ananda Church leaders, to suspend her thinking and judgment, and that the sexual touching was an acceptable spiritual treatment or "test" within the church's methods. (See Rains, 150 Cal.App.3d at 936.) Ms. plaintiff only discovered, after leaving Ananda in November, 1994 that the "swami" was using his attractive female followers to satisfy his own lustful appetites while controlling their minds and bodies. (Id. 150 Cal.App.3d at 937, 940~41.) Thus, Ms. plaintiff was deprived of the ability to make an informed consent. For the same reasons, a question of fact exists as to the date that the statute of limitations / for sexual battery began to run. Although the 5~ rule is that the touching itself begins the statute running, e.g., June, 1993, Ms. plaintiff claims for battery did not begin to run until November, 1994 under the delayed discovery doctrine, which applies when the plaintiff has not discovered all of the facts essential to the cause of action. (DeRose v. Carswell (1987) 1 96 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1017.) Inherent in such "discovery" of the facts is that the touching itself was "harmful." This is consistent with the rule enunciated in Rains. (Rains, 150 Cal.App.3d at 938- 39.).2 There is no statute of limitations until Ms. plaintiff escaped the defendants' domination of her and realized the harmful nature of the touching, as well as her lack of informed consent. A final and most important basis for delaying accrual of the statute is the presence of a Swami routinely concealed his misconduct with pseudo-spiritual psycho babble. example, he told Woman #1 that his sexual abuse of her was "just energy going from one part of the universe to another." Woman #1 Decl., B 17. When she spoke of the misconduct to other Ananda leaders, they told her to "let him have his way, whatever he wanted. Woman #1 Decl., n 18. PG 15 fiduciary relationship between Anne Marie and defendant Walters. In Evans v. Eckelman (1990) 2r6 Cal,App.3d 1609, 1615 [265 Cal.Rptr, 605] the court noted that the "is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships." In the context of such a relationship "[e]ven where memory of the events themselves is not suppressed, it may be some time before the victim can face the full impact of the acts." (Id at 161~.) Since a victim of sexual abuse in a confidential relationship can be manipulated "to prevent recognition or revelation of the abuse" (Ibid) accrual may be delayed, Just as a child can be taught that sexual abuse is 'normal or necessary to the relationship" (Ibid), Welters taught Anne Marie the same thing here - that sex was bad and it was all the fault of the female that the male became aroused, Thus when Walters rubbed his erect penis on Anne Marie's face, such conduct was not caused because he was a sexual predator. It was caused by the very fact of her womanhood, The application of the delayed discovery~f rule in these circumstances "would serve to prevent the molester from using [her] ignorance and trust to conceal the primary tort." (16id.) Thus, under the instant circumstances "[a]wareness of wrongdoing is a prerequisite to the accrual of the action under the delayed discovery rule." (Id at 1618.) V. CONCLUSION Defendant Ananda willfully ignores the manner in which it has been and continues to be used by defendant Welters. Ananda no more merits First Amendment protection that does a child molester. Indeed, as Walters' alter ego, it merits such protection less. "Thus, it is that the unmistakable stench of the skunk is found emanating from that which Defendant] has declared a rose." (~heriatclC v. Silber, supra 391 F.Supp, At 582.) Summary adjudication as to all three causes of action must be denied. Dated: June 3, 1997 Ford Greene, Attorney for Plaintiff