MAST responds to MCC statement that denies “claims of systemic abuse”
On February 5, 2025, MCC posted a public statement, “MCC settles litigation through Quebec Labour Board conciliation process,” in which the organization defends its decision to terminate John and Anicka’s employment in August 2023, “unequivocally” denies “claims of systemic abuse,” and emphasizes MCC’s integrity and care for staff in “difficult and complex situations.”
MAST finds this statement misleading, insulting, and harmful. Here, we provide a response from John and Anicka to the specific claims MCC makes about their termination, and a general response from MAST as a whole.
Statement from John and Anicka
You can review John and Anicka’s story in great detail on their survivor story page, which contains links to their detailed grievance, to the NDA that MCC offered them, and to media coverage of their case. You can read in the MAST press release about their legal action against MCC and its resolution in a conciliation agreement. You can review their reasoning for initiating legal action, and their repeated invitations to MCC to engage in restorative dialogue, here.
We are deeply shocked that MCC would defend their decision to terminate our employment, and that they would do so after coming to a settlement with us in which they offered us 180,000 CAD, with no NDA and no denial of wrongdoing. During the conciliation, although MCC refused to admit wrongdoing as we had asked them to, Rick Cober Bauman led us to believe that MCC boards would be open to hearing from us in upcoming facilitated conversations about the harm we had experienced, and that an apology could be possible at that point (His exact words to us were, “Both board leadership and senior staff leadership are both aware of and committed to this upcoming … facilitated conversation.… I see that as the right and appropriate and best place to for us deal with any of those pieces that go beyond the legal settlement. I know both boards are in serious consideration and conversation about what an apology would look like. They believe that that is the appropriate place to handle that.”). We hoped we would finally be able to tell MCC board members what had gone wrong in our case. But it appears that MCC has already made up its mind that its behaviour was justified, even without hearing from us directly and despite our repeated invitations to meet for conversation with restorative intent. By issuing this statement, MCC has once again demonstrated its willingness to prioritize its public image over a serious response to reports from whistleblowers.
Some individual details from MCC’s statement are true. For example, MCC’s crisis response team was actively working with us on the question of an evacuation plan for the entire team, we did have access to medical and mental health support while we were employed, and there were times when our supervisors encouraged us to seek counselling and/or medical help. But by leaving out the most significant pieces of our story (our reports of abuse, the NDA, and the harsh and vicious character of the termination), MCC’s entire story becomes grotesquely misleading.
1. MCC’s statement ignores the abuse – the psychological harassment – that we signaled to Executive Directors Rick and Ann in June 2023. The same people (HR Directors) who were gaslighting us and refusing to answer our questions were involved in the decision to terminate us. Executive Directors refused to hear (and STILL haven’t heard) the details of the workplace abuse and harassment that we said we wanted to tell them about. Because of this abuse, we no longer felt like MCC had our backs in an unstable political situation.
2. MCC’s statement ignores the offer of money in exchange for silence. They ignore the NDA. They make it sound like they made us a “generous” offer and we inexplicably refused it, but they don’t mention that this offer in August 2023 was conditional on our silence about abuse that we had signaled to them/that they knew about.
3. MCC’s statement ignores the documented health crisis. They ignore the fact that Anicka came to them with a diagnosis of PTSD and a relocation recommendation from a medical professional (with significant Africa experience).
4. MCC’s statement ignores the lack of policy justification. They claim there was justification to require us to stay on the “African continent” while seeking medical/psychological care. At the time, we asked them multiple times for a policy justification and they never provided one. We asked them multiple times for a policy offering guidance about sick leave for international service workers. They never provided one and it appears that no such policy exists.
5. MCC’s statement implies that they acted in caring and kind ways. They make it sound like concerned MCC personnel accompanied us lovingly through a health crisis by gently explaining options to us, showing concern for our health, and telling us clearly that we had to relocate in Africa or else end our work with MCC. In reality, although we felt our immediate supervisors were trying to support us, we had no contact with HR Directors, and no discussion of any kind with the IP Director who was making a decision about our request to relocate temporarily to the Netherlands. On August 24, she invited us to a conversation the following day. We believed that this would be an opportunity for us to discuss the detailed rationale for temporary relocation that we had sent her on August 17 (at the suggestion of our supervisors). We had received no warning that our employment was at stake. However, during the August 25 call there was not so much as a “How are you?” There was not one single word of concern or care. The call began with the IP Director immediately advising us that our employment with MCC was at an end, effective immediately, offering us money in exchange for silence, cutting us off from MCC systems and telling us not to contact MCC employees. This treatment by MCC senior staff does not align at all with the actions of a caring employer.
In short, MCC’s statement leaves out every detail that would provide evidence of what they actually did: fire whistleblowers who were in a health crisis and offer them a large amount of money to keep silent about workplace abuse and harassment.
A response from MAST
Bullies work by targeting and picking off the people who dare to speak out, one by one. MCC’s statement sends a message to all those who are experiencing ongoing harm that it is not safe for them to speak up. This is not just about John and Anicka, much as MCC seems to want to frame it that way. MCC’s statement that “the claims of systemic abuse are unequivocally false” is deeply insulting and harmful to all those who have come forward with allegations of abuse or who have signed the petition or written letters to the editor demanding change and an external investigation.
Statements like these shut down conversation and are harmful to survivors of abuse who hear the message that MCC is not listening and does not care if they are hurting people.
Our allegations are serious. MAST is aware of more than 50 stories of “bad endings” with MCC including callous terminations of employees who raise concerns or speak up for their health needs, gross mishandling of reports of sexual assault and harassment, and repeated offers of money in exchange for silence about financial misconduct or abuse. For MCC to simply assert that systemic abuse is not happening, in the absence of any credible independent investigation of these claims, is a sign that the leadership of MCC has lost its moral compass.
We call on MCC’s supporting denominations to insist on a full external investigation of all the allegations. This is the only way to get to the facts in an impartial way. Our global witness as North American Mennonites is being undermined when the administrators of our largest Mennonite service and peace institution claim, in the face of dozens of allegations that have not been investigated, that there is no systemic abuse, only “conflict.”
John and Anicka are not the only ones who have questions for MCC. Many of us long to finally share our evidence and our stories in the safe space that a fully external investigation can provide. When will MCC’s sponsoring denominations step in and communicate clearly and publicly to MCC that business as usual cannot continue until these allegations are investigated?
As we state in our Jan. 31 2025 press release,
“What we want is very simple: We want MCC to stop hurting people. We want an external investigation into all cases of abuse, in which survivors’ input and voice can shape an appropriate process. We want MCC’s constituents to step in and clearly communicate that they refuse to accept this violence. We want the church to respect and care for survivors.”
