Two cases that have recently become available involve the question of when adjudication of a dispute will involve the court in deciding issues of religious doctrine.
In Geiser v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, (Cal. Ct. App., March 22, 2006), a California appellate court, while upholding a volunteer assistant pastor’s claim against a church for battery, dismissed his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that the First Amendment requirement that a court not become involved in adjudicating issues of religious practice or orthodoxy precluded it from deciding the validity of the claim which was based on accusations that plaintiff made "unauthorized deliverances" and refused to "follow church policy". Deciding the case would involve the court in deciding the truth or falsity of defendant’s religious beliefs, or at least in making judgments about them. That, in turn, would place the court’s imprimatur on one version of church doctrine over another.
A case from Montana, decided some ten months ago, has just become available on LEXIS. In Raihl v. Passmore, 2005 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 1464 (Mont. Dist. Ct., July 21, 2005), a Montana trial court held that issues of negligent hiring, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress involving the Church of God could be decided without inquiring into religious teachings and beliefs. The court added: "to dismiss these causes of action on that basis would give a clear, green light to any church to conduct themselves in the same fashion given similar circumstances."
