"Church Autonomy" Requires Dismissal of Fired Faculty Member's Claims

In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, (ND IL, Sept. 25, 2019), an Illinois federal district court held that the "church autonomy" doctrine requires dismissal of claims by a former faculty member of a religious college that she was terminated because of her advocacy in favor of women serving as clergy members. The court said in part:

Garrick’s disagreement with Moody’s beliefs on the role of women in the ministry underlies the majority of Garrick’s allegations..... Under these circumstances, if the Court were to delve into the disputes posed by Garrick, it would impermissibly inject the auspices of government into religious doctrine and governance.

However the court said plaintiff could refile Title VII claims if they are untethered from her disagreements with Moody’s religious views.

Cert. Denied In Religious Autonomy Case

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied certiorari in First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa, Oklahoma v. Doe, (Docket No. 18-599, cert. denied 1/22/2019). (Order List).  In the case, which raises 1st Amendment religious autonomy issues, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit by a convert to Christianity who was kidnapped and tortured by Islamic extremists in Syria after his baptism was published online.  (See prior posting.)

Church Autonomy Doctrine Applies To Shaming By Group Teaching Reincarnation

In Hubbard v. J Message Group Corp., (D NM, July 11, 2018), a New Mexico federal magistrate judge dismissed under the church autonomy doctrine defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against JMGC, also known as Companions of Wisdom. The organization promotes reincarnation-based teachings. The court summarizes plaintiff's allegations:

JMGC lures people who are looking for spiritual direction and altruistic involvement.... When prospective members wish to advance their association with JMGC and share details of their personal lives with Defendants, Defendants collectively engage in a process designed to control, isolate, shame, emotionally harm, and take advantage of the prospective members.... Members who dissent or question the leadership’s directives become the targets of “shaming conduct”—meaning that Defendants “collectively disseminate false information coupled with outrageous accusations, in CoW communications, designed solely to cause dissenting members substantial emotional and psychological trauma.” ... Dissenting members are subjected to this “shaming conduct” until they recant their dissent or quit the organization....

Finding that the 1st Amendment requires dismissal, the court said in part:

JMGC/CoW, an organization that exists to promote its reincarnation-based spiritual doctrine and whose membership is required to adhere to its “religious” precepts, is entitled to First Amendment protections against tort claims on par with churches and other religious organizations. That is, ... JMGC/CoW retains exclusive control, protected by the First Amendment, over matters concerning “theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them.” ...

As alleged in the Complaint, the conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims originally stemmed from an internal dispute between Plaintiff and the leadership of JMGC prompted by Plaintiff’s “inquiring nature” and her “resistance” to the directives of the leadership. It is evident from the face of the Complaint, however, that JMGC is an authoritarian organization that does not permit dissent or questions regarding its doctrines or leadership. Thus, when she dissented from and questioned the leadership’s directives, to permit Plaintiff to pursue her claim for damages based on Defendants’ having ostracized and defamed her would, in the context of this case, amount to impermissible government interference with Defendants’ right to practice their faith....

The statements and conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s lawsuit cannot be adjudicated without impermissible intrusion upon Defendants’ right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to freely exercise their religion. Each of Plaintiff’s claims, if adjudicated in a civil trial, would require the jury (or judge in the role of fact-finder) to resolve questions that are rooted in religion. For example, in order to succeed in her defamation claim or in her false light invasion of privacy claim, Plaintiff would have to prove, among other things that, as a matter of fact, Plaintiff does not: have “a split who is a porn star”; Plaintiff’s soul has not been part of “several sex cults”; and that no aspect of Plaintiff’s soul was sexually or financially “predatory” within JMGC/CoW.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Reverses Itself In Suit By Muslim Convert To Christianity

In Doe v. First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa, (OK Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, withdrew its Feb. 2017 decision (see prior posting) dismissing on church autonomy grounds a suit challenging a church's publicizing of plaintiff's baptism, and replaced it with a majority opinion reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue are tort and breach of contract claims against a Presbyterian congregation.  Plaintiff is a Syrian, Muslim refugee who became interested in converting to Christianity and agreed to be baptized only after it was agreed that his conversion would be kept private.  However Presbyterian Church doctrine requires that information about those baptized be made public.  The fact of plaintiff's baptism was published on the Internet, leading to plaintiff's kidnapping and torture by Islamic extremists when he returned to Syria for a visit. The majority held:

All parties agree Doe simply asked for baptism, but never to become a member subject to the Appellees' ecclesiastical hierarchy. Without this consent, Doe's religious freedom to not subject himself to the Appellees' judicature must be respected and honored under the longstanding and clear constitutional decisions from our Court and the Supreme Court of the United States. What Doe consented to and what the FPC communicated to Doe must be determined as a foundational inquiry regarding Doe's claims.

It was error for the district court to conclude that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to hear Doe's claims on the basis of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The record below is replete with contested issues of fact which must be resolved by the trier of fact in an adversarial hearing below. This matter is hereby remanded back to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this decision.

Chief Justice Combs dissenting opinion argued that the majority wrongly conflated the church autonomy and ministerial exception doctrines in holding that the church autonomy defense is not jurisdictional. He went on to argue that plaintiff's non-membership in the church does not preclude application of the church autonomy doctrine. News OK reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Fired Pastor's Contract Suit Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception and Excessive Entanglement Doctrines

In Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburg, (WD PA, Aug. 22, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a breach of contract claim brought by a pastor against the church that had terminated his employment.  Rev. William Lee claims that the church breached his contract by not compensating him under the clause relating to termination without cause. the church argued that Lee was terminated for failing to fulfill his duties and responsibilities under the contract. The court dismissed on ministerial exception and excessive entanglement grounds, saying in part:

[T]he “ministerial exception” recognizes the right of a religious institution in exercising its First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty and autonomy in matters ecclesiastical to terminate from employment a Pastor such as Rev. Lee. Rev. Lee’s dispute with the Church regarding his termination from employment fully implicates such rights....

The Church argues that where Rev. Lee failed in spiritual stewardship, financial stewardship and responsiveness to Church leadership, as determined by the Church and its Congregation, his termination was for cause under § 12.3.... 

[T]he Court concludes that any determination whether Rev. Lee failed in his spiritual and financial stewardship and responsiveness to Church leaders is a matter best left to the Church alone. Otherwise, the Court and jury would need to probe how the Church evaluated spiritual success and leadership under its doctrine.... Prohibited considerations of ecclesiastical hierarchy are directly implicated in the assessment that Rev. Lee did not adequately respond to Church leadership.

Court Dismisses Church Trustee Challenges As Moot

In Johnson v. Barnes, (IN App., Aug. 17, 2017), an Indiana appellate court dismissed as moot a case in which the trial court had removed three trustees of the Pilgrim Baptist Church and ordered new elections. Those former trustees challenged the trial court's action in removing them.  The appeals court held that since new elections have been held, the choice of trustees by church members in those elections is controlling.

In Unusual Church Autonomy Dispute, Catholic School Can Require Immunization of All Students

In a case with an unusual twist, a Florida state appeals court yesterday upheld the policy of a Catholic school requiring immunization of all students, even when a parent has religious objections to immunization.  In Flynn v. Estevez, (FL App., June 27, 2017), the appeals court held that under the church autonomy doctrine, a civil court cannot require a religious school to comply with the provision in Florida law that allows parents to object on religious grounds to immunization of their children. It said in part:

...[T]he application of the statutory exemption to the Diocese is problematic due to the intramural ecclesiastical kerfuffle that underlies this dispute. The Diocese has a religiously-based immunization policy with which one of its members disagrees; Mr. Flynn seeks the power of the State to compel the Diocese to depart from its point-of-view and admit his non-immunized son. But doing so would further his own religious views at the expense of the Diocese’s on the topic of immunizations. We are convinced that a secular court should not be making the judgment as to which side’s religious view of immunization is to be respected.... Unlike other church autonomy cases, the unique feature of this one is that both parties assert Catholic religious doctrine as the basis for their litigation positions, which cautions against a secular court wading into the squabble.... 

Mr. Flynn claims the Diocese’s vaccination policy must be actually rooted in a specific religion doctrine, tenet, or text, and that its “general concern about the ‘common good’” is a religiously ineffectual basis for invoking the abstention doctrine. Though the trial court wasn’t presented with the specific religious basis for the Diocese’s new policy, we find no fault in its conclusion that “immunizations of children attending Catholic schools is an issue of faith, discipline, and Catholicism [that] can only properly be determined by the church and not by the civil courts.” Courts are in no more of a position to compel the Diocese to provide a sufficient quantum of passable proof that its view of immunization is consistent with the Catholic faith than to do so as to Mr. Flynn’s personal views of Catholic doctrine on the very same subject.

News Service of Florida reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Says Church Autonomy Shields Suit Over Publicity of Baptism

In a 5-3 decision in Doe v. First Presbyterian Church USA of Tulsa, (OK Sup. Ct., Feb. 22, 2017), the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the church autonomy doctrine requires dismissal of a suit by a Muslim convert to Christianity challenging the church's online publicity of his baptism. Plaintiff traveled to Syria after the baptism where he allegedly was kidnapped and tortured by radical Muslims who threatened to carry out a death sentence for apostasy.  The majority framed the issue as one of whether publication of the baptism on the internet is an act rooted in religious belief so that it falls within the church's ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  The majority concluded:

The context of the online posting of Appellant's baptism is not secular. Appellant's tort claims all rest on an act that, per church doctrine, is an integral part of what the church considers to be the public nature of the sacrament. Because Appellant's tort claims arise from the performance of his baptism, this dispute is one over ecclesiastical rule, custom or law, and is not purely secular.....

Justices Gurich and Kauger disagreed, saying in part:

The present case does not involve a question of discipline, faith, or ecclesiastical rule decided by a church tribunal, nor does it involve an internal, administrative matter. It merely involves the Church's publication of Appellant's name on the internet. No judicial body in the Church rendered any decision that Appellant is now trying to relitigate in civil court, and ... the autonomy of an internal Church disciplinary process is not threatened. Moreover [this suit] ... satisfies an exception to the church autonomy doctrine [for serious threats to public safety, peace or order].

AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Court Says Religious Autonomy Precludes Adjudication of Suit By Torture Victim

In a fascinating decision handed down June 17, an Oklahoma trial court held that the "religious autonomy doctrine" requires it to dismiss a suit against a U.S. church by a convert from Islam to Christianity who was captured and tortured in Syria because of his conversion. The facts are set out more fully in a complaint (full text) filed in 2014.  A Tulsa, Oklahoma resident who was born in Syria decided to convert, but told First Presbyterian Church leaders that his conversion had to remain confidential because he periodically traveled back to Syria and the punishment for apostasy under Sharia law was death. Despite assurances of confidentiality, the church published an announcement of his baptism in its Order of Worship, which was posted on the World Wide Web.  After traveling back to Syria, plaintiff was bound, beaten and tortured by radical Muslims who threatened to behead him. He eventually escaped.  His suit alleges that the church is guilty of negligence, breach of contract and outrageous conduct leading to extreme emotional distress.

In Doe v. First Presbyterian Church USA of Tulsa, Oklahoma, (OK Dist. Ct., June 17, 2016), the court held that the public dissemination of the names of those who have been baptized "is a key part of how the Church requires a conversion and baptism to be 'visible" to the world." The court went on to say:

the simple dispositive issue is whether the public dissemination of Plaintiff's name as a baptized person is "rooted in religious belief"....

[A] secular Court like this one must not consider claims ... that arise out of a sacrament because a sacrament is part of the most sacred beliefs of that religious institution.... Defendants' deeply held religious belief about the visible, public nature of baptism must not be disturbed by this Court. [emphasis in original]

Tulsa World reports on the decision, with additional background.

Suit Against Church Claims Plaintiffs Were Defamed After They Opposed Hiring Openly Gay Pastor

The Fargo Forum in an initial and follow-up article reports on a lawsuit filed this week in Cass County, North Dakota state district court against a Kindred, North Dakota Lutheran church, church leaders and the church's parent bodies.  Plaintiffs Ray and Joan Grabanski who had been church members for 23 years seek damages for defamation and infliction of emotional distress. The Grabanskis opposed the church's hiring of an openly gay pastor. As recounted by the Forum:

The lawsuit says when the Grabanskis made their views known, they were subjected to "public ridicule, scorn, intimidation, isolation" by the church leadership, and were told the congregation was too liberal for them.

Joan Grabanski was asked to stop teaching Sunday school, and the couple was told they could leave or be forced out, with church leaders calling them "a cancer," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit alleges the local synod of the ELCA was aware of the conflict and failed to stop the damaging behavior.

It names the ELCA and the Eastern North Dakota Synod of the ELCA, as well as the church's interim pastor and two other church leaders.

Defendants are seeking dismissal arguing that civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate doctrinal beliefs or interpret a church's constitution. [Thanks to Christopher Dodson for the lead.]

European Court Upholds Hungary's Refusal To Award Damages To Dismissed Pastor

Last week in a Chamber Judgment, the European Court of Human Rights held by a 4-3 vote that there had not been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, Sec. 6(1), when Hungary refused to adjudicate a dispute between a pastor and his Hungarian Calvinist Church.  At issue were claims by a pastor who had been terminated by the Church for stating in a local newspaper that State subsidies had been paid unlawfully to a Calvinist boarding school.  In Nagy v. Hungary, (ECHR, Dec. 1, 2015), a majority of the court, with fragmented reasoning spanning two opinions, concluded that there had not been a denial of the right to a hearing in the civil courts, particularly when a claim could have been brought in ecclesiastical courts.  Three judges dissented, saying in part:

[I]t is more than doubtful that it would be possible at all to show that (and how) the settlement, by a State court, of the pecuniary dispute between the applicant and the Calvinist Church could pose a “real” and “substantial” risk to that church’s autonomy.

The Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. ADF issued a press release on the decision.

Archdiocese Must Go To Trial On Teacher's Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Bohnert v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, (ND CA, Sept. 25, 2015), a California federal district court refused to dismiss a hostile work environment and emotional distress suit by by a former biology teacher in a boys' Catholic high school.  As described by the court, male students at the school sexually harassed the teacher, including disseminating several "upskirt" photos and videos of her.  In a 38-page opinion, the court rejected the Archdiocese's  motion for summary judgment on its "ministerial exception" and "church autonomy" defenses, finding that numerous factual issues remain.

Suit Against Former Pastor For Financial Misdeeds Dismissed On Church Autonomy Grounds

In Trustees of the Alpine Methodist Episcopal Church v. New Jersey United Methodist Church, (NJ Super., Sept. 22, 2015), a New Jersey trial court dismissed on church autonomy and hierarchical deference grounds a suit by the trustees of a Methodist congregation  against its former pastor for misuse of church funds. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Rev. Kim misused or misappropriated church funds and property in a variety of ways, including forging checks, paying his personal utility bills with Church funds, and utilizing Tipton [the financial secretary] as a means to convert church donations.... 

Before the Court can determine whether Rev. Kim is liable to Plaintiff under any claim, it would first have to determine whether Rev. Kim violated the rules set forth in The Book of Discipline and whether the [United Methodist Church's] policy and polity permitted Rev. Kim to engage in certain financial and managerial practices....

Moreover, Plaintiff’s sought relief through the UMC’s process, wherein Plaintiff’s representatives at the Church met with Superintendent Plumstead.... Plumstead met with the Church’s Staff Parish Relations Committee and advised the Committee that they had several options. The Committee could “move on”, i.e., accepting that grievances were duly lodged, or pursue internal church or legal action by filing a formal complaint with the bishop’s office... The Committee did not take any further internal church or legal action. In response, Plaintiff, by and through new representatives, did not accept this decision and decided to separate from the UMC.... Plaintiff believes that the hierarchical bodies of the UMC did not reach a just resolution of their claims and therefore, seeks relief in a secular court. Plaintiff’s recent disenchantment with the UMC does not warrant secular court review in contravention of the longstanding jurisprudence of this state’s Appellate Division, its sister states, and the Supreme Court of the United States

Philadelphia Church Members Sue Claiming Board Misappropriation

The Philadelphia Tribune reported yesterday on a state court lawsuit filed Feb. 5 by members of Philadelphia's historic Zion Baptist Church against the board of trustees and long-time church member Ronald Harper.  The suit alleges that Harper as chairman of the trustees misappropriated and misused church assets for personal gain and profit for his law firm.  Plaintiffs claim that and the board hid the transactions by making misrepresentations to the deacon board and church membership.  The suit seeks an accounting and a forensic audit of the issuance of $18 million in bonds to renovate a church-owned apartment building. The suit also seeks a new membership vote on the ouster of the church's former pastor, Carl Prince, who allegedly was removed because he sought greater financial accountability.

Court Orders Sikh Temple Meeting With Quorum Requirement Dropped

According to the Marysville, California Appeal-Democrat, a Sutter County, California state trial court judge last Friday issued an interim order in a dispute over control of a Sikh Temple in Yuba City.  Members who have wanted to hold a meeting to challenge action of the Temple's board of directors have been unable to do so because of the by-laws' unrealistic quorum requirement.  The bylaws require a quorum of over 50% of the formal members of the Temple.  A membership list compiled in 2008 lists over 4400 members, many of whom have died or moved away.  Only 500 people are signed up to receive the Temple's monthly newsletter.  An attempt to obtain a quorum in May 2013 led to 2000 people showing up, but a number still short of a quorum.  The court Friday ordered a special meeting of members to be held, and ordered the Temple to drop the quorum requirement for the meeting. The Temple's attorney argues that the interim order is unconstitutional because it infringes on the Temple's internal governance.

Court Orders Minister To Return Church Keys, Mercedes and Stay Away From Church Premises

On Thursday, an Alabama state trial court issued a preliminary injunction ordering Rev. Juan McFarland to turn over his church keys to the deacons and trustees of Montgomery's Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church that he led for 24 years. He was also ordered to return the Mercedes furnished to him by the church and to stay away from the church. AP reports that lay laders of the church filed the lawsuit against McFarland after the congregation voted in a contentious meeting to fire the minister, but he refused to leave.  He continued preaching, changed the church locks, took control of its bank accounts and attempted to fire longtime church officials.  The congregation's action was triggered by a series of sermons McFarland delivered in August and September in which he confessed to having sex with married church members in the church building, not telling his sex partners that he has AIDS, and using illegal drugs. He said God commanded him to make the publc confession.  A court  hearing on a permanent injunction is scheduled for Dec. 1.

Pastor's Claim of Wrongful Termination Is Dismissed

In Simons v. Lewis, (NJ App., Oct. 2, 2014), a New Jersey appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismssal of a lawsuit by a church's senior pastor who was ousted from his position. The appellate court said in part:

Where, as here, a church's governing body determines that the church's pastor is spiritually disqualified from continuing to serve the congregation, the courts cannot interfere without trenching on the church's right of self-governance and its First Amendment right to choose its clergy.

The court also held that the "clean hands" doctrine prevents the pastor from arguing that the board members who removed him lacked authority to do so. His claim was that he lacked authority to appoint the board members that he did.

Fired Principal of Seventh Day Adventist School Can Pursue Her Claim

In Galetti v. Reeve, (NM App., May 28, 2014), the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the church autonomy doctrine does not require dismissal at this time of a damage claim by a former principal and teacher at a Seventh Day Adventist school who was fired from her position. Plaintiff claims that she was harassed by by her supervisor and was fired in retaliation for filling a complaint about it. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing her breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, intentional interference with contract, civil conspiracy, and defamation claims, saying:

The First Amendment does not immunize every legal claim against a religious institution or its members, but only those claims that are rooted in religious belief.

It added that if later it becomes apparent that any of the claims turn on matters of doctrine or church governance, summary judgment may be proper then.