What were the outcomes and current status of the 2022 employment lawsuit alleging Scientology coercion at Dr. Berg's company?
Executive summary
A 2022 lawsuit accused Dr. Eric Berg’s company of pressuring an employee to participate in Scientology practices and purportedly subjected staff to persistent religious coercion; reporting at the time said Berg was scheduled to be deposed in that action [1]. Publicly available background reporting and commentary portray Berg as a prominent Scientologist and controversial influencer, but the assembled sources do not record the lawsuit’s resolution or its current procedural status, leaving the ultimate outcome unreported in the materials provided [1] [2].
1. The allegation and the filing: what the complaint claimed
The complaint, as described in contemporary reporting, alleged that employment with Dr. Eric Berg’s operation came with “constant pressure” to engage in Scientology-related activities and that a former employee brought suit claiming coercive religious influence in the workplace [1]. That portrayal framed the case as an employment dispute with religious-freedom and coercion dimensions rather than a simple wage or termination claim, and it drew attention because Berg is a high‑profile online health influencer whose business overlaps with his personal beliefs [1] [2].
2. Immediate procedural posture reported: depositions scheduled
At the time the story ran, one of the key milestones publicly noted was that Berg himself had been scheduled for deposition, signaling that the case had moved beyond initial pleadings into discovery where witness testimony could be gathered [1]. A scheduled deposition of a founder or principal often marks a pivotal phase in civil litigation, because it can precipitate settlement talks, dispositive motions, or trial preparation, but the reporting available to this review stops at that procedural point [1].
3. Who is Eric Berg and why this case attracted attention
Eric Berg is widely described in public commentary as a chiropractor-turned-YouTube personality with millions of followers who has been associated with Scientology—profiles and commentary note his self-identification in the church’s upper ranks and significant donations by his family as part of that narrative—which explains part of the story’s public resonance [2]. Coverage emphasizing Berg’s controversial public health claims and organizational donations amplified interest in an employment suit alleging religious coercion because it tied workplace conduct to a broader pattern of public advocacy and financial support for Scientology [2].
4. Limits of the available reporting and what remains unknown
The assembled sources do not provide any post-deposition developments, court orders, settlement notices, dismissal, trial verdict, or appeals, and therefore do not establish whether the lawsuit was settled, dismissed, tried, or is still pending [1]. Because no further court records or later reporting are included among the provided materials, definitive statements about the lawsuit’s outcome or current docket status cannot be responsibly made from these sources alone [1].
5. How to verify current status — where the trail goes next
To determine the outcome or current status concretely, the next step would be to consult primary court records for the jurisdiction where the suit was filed (docket entries, motions, judgments), or to search federal systems like PACER or local court online portals for case updates; media follow-ups and plaintiff or defendant statements can also confirm settlements or rulings, but neither are present in the materials provided here [1]. Contemporary reporting cited here (Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker) is an advocacy-driven outlet with a history of critical coverage of Scientology, and RationalWiki similarly offers strongly critical commentary, so both the substance of the allegations and their framing should be cross-checked against neutral court filings and officially filed documents to avoid relying solely on opinionated sources [1] [2].
6. Alternative perspectives and implicit agendas in the record
The narrative in the available coverage emphasizes Berg’s Scientology ties and controversial public persona, which supports the plaintiff’s theory of coercion but also aligns with agendas of outlets and compendia that are critical of Scientology and of Berg’s public health claims; that alignment suggests the need to balance the plaintiff’s allegations with primary legal documents and possible defenses or explanations offered by Berg or his counsel, none of which appear in the supplied sources [1] [2]. Without court rulings or statements from both parties in the provided reporting, readers should treat the allegations as claims pending adjudication rather than established fact [1].