Kentucky Supreme Court Allows Limited Discovery In Suit Against Church

In Presbyterian Church (U.S..) v. Edwards, (KY Sup. Ct., Sept. 27, 2018), the Kentucky Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision affirmed a Court of Appeals decision limiting discovery in a defamation suit against the Presbyterian Church to that necessary to determine if the church is entitled to ecclesiastical immunity.  The issue arose out of a suit by Rev. Eric Hoey who claims that the church defamed him by releasing to Presbyterian news agencies a statement that he had been terminated for committing ethical violations. A dissent written by Justice Venters argued:

To establish his claim of defamation, Hoey must prove that the Church officials were lying when they said that his conduct violated the Church’s ethical rules for its ministers....

It is immediately apparent from the face of Hoey’s Complaint that his claim can be sustained only by second-guessing the decision of the Church’s governing body that Hoey violated the Church’s ethical policies. The only way that Hoey can show that Church officials falsely stated that he violated the Ethical Policy contained in the Book of Order is to prove that he did not violate that policy.

I respectfully submit that only the Church can make that determination and the Government, through its courts, legislature, or executive agencies, cannot supersede that decision.

European Court of Human Rights OKs Injunctions Against Anti-Abortion Activist

In four related Chamber Judgments issued on Sept. 20, the European Court of Human rights upheld injunctions and the award of damages in the cases that doctors brought against an anti-abortion activist for calling doctors who performed abortions aggravated murderers and comparing abortion to the Holocaust. The court issued a press release summarizing the holdings in Annen v. Germany (No. 2 to 5):

The cases concerned a series of complaints by an anti-abortion activist, Klaus Günter Annen, over civil court injunctions on various actions he had taken as part of an anti-abortion campaign. The plaintiffs in the domestic proceedings were four doctors who performed abortions.

The Court held in particular that the injunctions had interfered with Mr Annen’s freedom of expression, but had been necessary in a democratic society. When examining whether there had been a need for such interferences in the interests of the “protection of the reputation or rights of others”, namely of the doctors, the Court’s role was only to ascertain whether the domestic courts had struck a fair balance when protecting the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights].

The press release contains links to the full text of each of the four decisions. [Thanks to Paul deMello Jr. for the lead.]

Suit Charges Catholic Church With Defamation

The Morning Call yesterday reported on a lawsuit filed in a Pennsylvania state trial court by Juliann Bortz based on information which she learned for the first time from the recently released Pennsylvania state grand jury report on sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.  The lawsuit, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claims that Church officials gathered “irrelevant, unrelated [or] false ‘dirt’ ” on Bortz to discredit her reports of abuse by a priest.

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.

Iowa Supreme Court Dismisses Negligence, But Not Negligent Supervision, Claims Against Church Elders

In Bandstra v. Covenant Reformed Church, (IA Sup. Ct., filed 6/1/2018), the Iowas Supreme Court held that the 1st Amendment and parallel state constitutional provisions bar negligence claims against elders of the church for their response to disclosure that the church's pastor was having sexual relations with several women he was counseling.  The court said in part:

Following [the pastor's] resignation, the elders sought to help the congregation move forward and heal. The means by which they chose to counsel and advise the congregation is outside the purview of the government. Plaintiffs argue “a reasonable church would seek assistance for parishioners and not label victims ‘adulteresses.’ ” Yet, that is precisely the type of determination that the Religion Clauses prohibit.... A court cannot dictate what teachings and services a church offers its parishioners. Nor can we disapprove of the elders deciding, pursuant to their duty as religious authorities, that the women would be best healed by simply confessing their “sins.”

However the court allowed one of the plaintiffs to move ahead with a negligent supervision claim, holding:

While the decision whether to invite certain speakers, or use certain rhetoric, is protected religious decision-making, reasonable supervision of an employee is a principle of tort law that applies neutrally to all employers. Further, the Church confirmed during oral argument that the Church’s supervision, or lack thereof, was not grounded in any religious doctrine or teachings.

It also held that the trial court properly dismissed a number of defamation claims. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Priest's Defamation Suit

In Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gallagher, (FL App., May 9, 2018), a Florida state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a Catholic priest against the diocese in which he served.  Father John Gallagher was not offered the position of pastor at Holy Name Church, and was reassigned.  He rejected the transfer and instead took a leave, contending that the reassignment was punishment for his attempt to expose inadequacies in the way in which the diocese handled sexual abuse claims.  In response to his going public with these charges, diocese officials made comments that led to Gallagher's lawsuit.  As related in the court's opinion:

Father Gallagher claimed the diocese defamed him in newspaper articles, letters to parishioners which were read at masses, press statements posted on the diocese webpage, electronic mail among diocese personnel, and postings on diocese personnel’s social media. These statements, Father Gallagher alleged, defamed him by calling him a liar, unfit to be a priest, and in need of professional help.

Rejecting the trial court's conclusion to the contrary, the Court of Appeals held:

[T]o, to resolve Father Gallagher’s actual damages claim, the courts would have to determine whether the diocese’s reasons for not making him a pastor, and reassigning him to another church, were valid religious reasons concerning Father Gallagher’s fitness for the job, or retaliation for Father Gallagher’s whistleblowing....  [W]e would be required to weigh the effect of Father Gallagher’s problems with his Hispanic congregants on the advisory committee’s decision to pass over Father Gallagher for the position of pastor, and whether this was a valid religious reason for the diocese’s decision.....

We are not permitted to look behind the diocese’s ministerial employment decision because doing so would necessarily entangle us in questions about the religious reasons why Father Gallagher was not promoted under canonical law.

Daily Business Review reports on the decision.

Most of Church Director's Claims Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Kelly v. St. Luke Community United Methodist Church, (TX App., Feb. 1, 2018), a Texas state appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss most of the claims brought by a fired church Director of Operations. The court said in part:

the substance of Kelly’s claims for negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, age and sex discrimination, and  defamatory statements published within the church community relates to internal matters of church governance and each of those claims is “inextricably intertwined” with those internal matters.... While the elements of those claims can be ascertained using secular principles, the application of those principles to impose civil liability on appellees would impinge upon the church’s ability to manage its internal affairs.

However the court allowed plaintiff to move ahead with her  defamation claim based on statements published to persons outside the church.

European Court Vindicates Critic of Anti-Muslim Political Remarks

In Case of GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland,  (ECHR, Jan. 9, 2018), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that the free speech rights of a civil rights organization were infringed when Swiss courts sanctioned it for a web posting calling remarks of a youth leader of a right wing party "verbal racism." The remarks were made in the context of a referendum on banning the building of minarets. A Swiss appellate court found that the web posting infringed the party leader's personality rights.  It required the organization to remove its web posting and replace it by the court's opinion. It also was required to pay legal and court costs. The ECHR held in part:

When assessing the impugned statements in the present case, it is first of all important to bear in mind the general background of the ongoing political debate in which both statements were made.

... Both B.K.’s speech and the applicant organisation’s article concerned a topic of intense public debate in Switzerland at the material time, which was the popular initiative against the construction of minarets, which was widely reported on in national and international media. The initiative, calling for a ban on the construction of minarets, was ultimately accepted by a referendum on 29 November 2009 and such a ban was included in the Swiss Constitution....

The Court reiterates that a distinction has to be made between private individuals and persons acting in a public context, as political or public figures. Accordingly, whilst a private individual unknown to the public may claim particular protection of his or her right to private life, the same is not true of public figures.... 

... B.K. had willingly exposed himself to public scrutiny by stating his political views and therefore had to show a higher degree of tolerance towards potential criticism of his statements by persons or organisations which did not share his views.

A Chamber Judgment may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.  the Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.  Law & Religion UK has more on the case.

Defamation Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Dermody v. Presbyterin Church (U.S.A.),  (KY App., July 28, 2017), a Kentucky appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a defamation suit brought by Roger Dermody, the minister who had been employed to oversee the mission work of Presbyterian Church (USA).  Dermody contended that the Church repeatedly falsely accused him of unethical conduct.  An audit committee investigation had found that Dermody had failed to adequately supervise three employees who created a separate corporation to carry out church mission work free of budget cuts and leadership changes. The court said:

We have carefully examined the issue and have determined we cannot provide Dermody the relief he seeks without excessive government entanglement into an ecclesiastical controversy-- that controversy is the disagreement between a minister and his church about what constitutes unethical conduct by one of that church's ministers.

Judge Combs concurred, but said:

... I write separately to express my concern about the disregard of Dermody's reputation demonstrated by the conduct of the Presbyterian Church.... 

The generalized announcement that he was dismissed due to "ethical violations" has clearly cast a shadow over his name.... Dermody now bears the inevitable burden of re-establishing a good name that was needlessly sullied by the church's failure to report his true shortcoming: that of being a poor manager rather than a corrupt or fallen cleric.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

European Court Upholds Defamation Judgment For False Charges of Anti-Muslim Statements

In Case of Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECHR, June 27, 2017), the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber by a vote of 11-6 held that the free expression rights of a Muslim religious community and three non-governmental organizations representing ethnic Bosnian Muslims were not infringed by a defamation judgment entered against them.  The suit grew out of a letter sent to authorities of the Brčko District's multi-ethnic radio station objecting to the appointment of "Ms. M.S." as director of the station.  Among other things, the letter claimed that M.S.:

(1) stated in an interview ... commenting on the destruction of mosques in Brčko, that Muslims were not a people ..., that they did not possess culture and that, accordingly, destroying mosques could not be seen as destruction of cultural monuments,

(2) as an employee of the BD radio demonstratively tore to pieces on the radio’s premises ... the calendar showing the schedule of religious services during the month of Ramadan...

These statements were inaccurate.  The majority concluded:

the authorities of the respondent State struck a fair balance between the applicants’ interest in free speech, on the one hand, and M.S.’s interest in protection of her reputation on the other hand, thus acting within their margin of appreciation....

The Court's press release on the decision summarizes the Court's reasoning.

Teacher's Defamation Verdict Against Archdiocese Upheld

In Gallagher v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 148 (PA Com. Pl., April 11, 2017), a Pennsylvania Common pleas court upheld a $508,000 jury verdict in a defamation suit by a 6th grade "lay teacher" in a Catholic school against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  The school administration had accused plaintiff Cindy Gallagher of unethical teaching practices in connection with a study guide she compiled to prepare her students for a standardized test. The court held that it was not required to defer to religious authorities because "the cheating incident was not conceived as an ecclesiastical matter only appropriate for religious resolution." It also concluded that the "ministerial exception" doctrine does not apply because Gallagher was a lay teacher, saying in part:

labeling Appellee as a minister of the church based on her role in prayer with her students and her participation in obtaining mandatory religious credits to be a teacher at the school would expand the scope of the ministerial exception beyond its intended purpose.

8th Circuit: Abuse Victim's Defamation Suit Is Untimely

In Couzens v. Donohue, (8th Cir., April 18, 2017), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal on statute of limitations grounds of a defamation suit against the Catholic League for Religious Liberty.  In the suit, plaintiff alleged that defendants published false information to discredit and humiliate him in retaliation his public allegations that he was sexually abused by priests. The court likewise affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Kansas City Star reports on the decision.

Suit Over Priest's Breach of Confessional Secrecy Is Dismissed

In Sonnier v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26498 (WD LA, Feb. 23, 2017), a Louisiana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27235, Jan. 18. 2017) and dismissed an action alleging invasion of privacy and defamation brought by a member of a Catholic church who claimed that a priest violated his 1st Amendment rights by disclosing plaintiff's use of the confessional to communicate with individuals involved in a civil litigation matter. The court concluded that the 1st Amendment does not apply because no state actor was involved in the conduct.  The court went on to hold that in addition:

Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of internal religious affairs as they are predicated on: (1) the breach of the sacramental seal of confession, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church; and (2) Bishop Jarrell's failure to remedy the breach in accordance with church doctrine. In order to discern whether Plaintiff has asserted meritorious claims against Defendants, the Court would have to interpret church doctrine relating to the sacrament of confession and otherwise encroach upon the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. Application of long-standing First Amendment jurisprudence, therefore, mandates that this Court refrain from considering Plaintiff's claims.

British Court Rejects Imam's Defamation Claim Against BBC

In Begg v. British Broadcasting Corp., (EWHC, Oct. 28, 2016), a British trial court dismissed a defamation claim brought against the BBC by the chief imam of a London mosque.  The claimant,  Shakeel Begg, sued over a description of him included in a BBC current affairs television program. The court concluded however that:

the words complained of ... are substantially true in their meanings: (1) The Claimant is an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions. (2) The Claimant had recently promoted and encouraged religious violence by telling Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed.

In an interesting portion of its analysis, the court said:

I turn to consider what is properly to be considered “extreme” in the context of Islam and Islamic doctrinal positions. It is necessary to do so in order to determine that the BBC’s plea of justification for the [words complained of] is made out, viz. “The Claimant is an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions”. The various speeches and posts relied upon by the BBC were given by the Claimant on Islamic issues in his capacity as an Imam and directed to predominantly Muslim audiences. The analysis of what is “extreme” and what are “extremist Islamic positions” is, therefore, necessarily to be judged initially through the prism of Islam.

Then the court (beginning in paragraph 118) sets out ten teachings or beliefs that meet the definition of Islamic extremism. Out-Law.com reporting on the decision notes that this is one of the last cases based on laws that preceded the 2013 Defamation Act.  That Act changed the defense of "justification" to the defense of "truth".

Church's RLUIPA Claim Dismissed, But Defamation Claim Moves Forward

In Riverside Church v. City of St. Michael, (D MN, Aug. 31, 2016), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed a church's RLUIPA and free exercise claims, but allowed the church to proceed on its free speech and defamation claims. A Christian and Missionary Alliance congregation attempted to purchase a building formerly used as a movie theater but could not obtain city zoning approval.  Eventually the city amended its zoning ordinance to allow religious assemblies, among others, in the relevant zoning district.  The Church however sued over the past zoning denials, and over an allegedly false public statement the city made as to why the Church withdrew from negotiations with the city.  In dismissing the Church's RLUIPA claim, the court concluded that neither the substantial burden nor equal terms provisions of the law were violated.  The court also pointed to a less-often used safe-harbor provision in RLUIPA that allows the city to "avoid the pre-emptive force" of the statute by taking action to eliminate the substantial burden imposed by a policy.  In allowing the Church's free speech claim to proceed, the court concluded that questions remained as to whether the ban on religious assemblies in the relevant zoning district was narrowly enough tailored to the city's traffic safety concerns.

Court Enters Findings For Priest As Sanction For SNAP's Refusal To Comply With Discovery Order

Last year, St. Louis Catholic priest Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang, who had been charged with abusing a boy, but then had charges dropped, filed a federal lawsuit against a number of defendants, including the boy's parents and the victim advocacy group SNAP.  The suit charged SNAP with conspiracy, defamation and infliction of emotional distress. (See prior postings 1, 2).  As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jiang has been attempting through discovery to obtain information on people who had made complaints against him to SNAP.  The court ordered SNAP to produce that (and other) information, but it has refused.  So Jiang moved for the imposition of sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In Jiang v. Porter, (ED MO, Aug. 22, 2016), a Missouri federal district court judge imposed unusual sanctions:

[T]he Court will direct that the facts alleged supporting elements of plaintiff’s claims against the SNAP defendants have been established for the purpose of this action.... 

[T]he Court will direct that it has been established that the SNAP defendants conspired with one another and others to obtain plaintiff’s conviction on sexual abuse charges and that they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race and national origin.

Church Sues Over Misrepresentation of Its Views On Same-Sex Marriage

A Hudsonville, Michigan church this week filed a false-light invasion of privacy lawsuit in Michigan state court against a gay rights activist whom it accuses of falsely representing that the church supports same-sex marriage. The complaint (full text) in Jenison Bible Church, Inc. v. VanderLey, (MI Cir. Ct., filed 5/3/2016), contends that when Bradlee Dean, a controversial Christian speaker opposed to same-sex marriage, was scheduled speak in the area, defendant Daniel VanderLey arranged a demonstration against him and sought to have local churches join it.  VanderLey sent demand letters to local churches, including Jenison Bible Church, telling them that unless they affirmatively opted out, VanderLey would arrange to have a sign saying that the church "stands for love not hate" displayed at the anti-Bradlee Dean rally.  The complaint contends that this public distortion of Jenison Bible Church's views on same-sex marriage and sexual immorality negatively impacts its ability to share the Gospel and damages its reputation in the eyes of other churches, it neighbors, and those potentially interested in joining the church. The suit seeks an injunction, a published retraction and a public apology. [Thanks to Brian D Wassom for the lead.]

One Suit Against Scientology Proceeds As Leader Threatens Another (Unrelated) Lawsuit

In Los Angeles yesterday, a California state trial court judge refused to dismiss a suit brought against the Church of Scientology International and its Religion Technology Center by former church member Laura Ann DeCrescenzo.  According to MyNews L.A., plaintiff, who began to volunteer for the Church at age 6 or 7 and later became a member of its elite Sea Org, alleges that she was forced to work long hours before she was a teen and was forced to have an abortion at age 17.  The suit also sets out claims of false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practices and wage-and-hour violations.

Meanwhile, lawyers for Scientology's leader David Miscavige are threatening to file suit against the publisher of a book coauthored by Miscavige's own father titled Ruthless: Scientology, My Son David Miscavige, and Me. According to the Christian Examiner, the book is scheduled to be released in the United Kingdom next week. A demand letter from Miscavige's lawyers says that the book contains false, malicious, misleading and highly defamatory statements.

Abstention Required In Suit For Defamation In Excommunication Proceedings

In Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, (MN Sup. Ct., April 6, 2016), the Minnesota Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision (2 justices not participating), held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the 1st Amendment prohibits holding a church and its pastors liable in a defamation action for statements made during church disciplinary proceedings seeking to excommunicate plaintiffs. The majority concluded:

Ultimately, adjudicating [plaintiffs'] claims would excessively entangle the courts with religion and unduly interfere with respondents’ constitutional right to make autonomous decisions regarding the governance of their religious organization.

Justice Lillehaug's dissenting opinion complained:

 Today the court creates what is, essentially, an absolute privilege to defame in “formal church discipline proceedings.” No matter how false and malicious the statement, and no matter how much the victim is damaged, there is no remedy whatsoever in Minnesota’s courts.

Church of Cannabis Leader Sues Former Police Chief For Defamation

According to a report yesterday from WKYC News, in Indianapolis, Indiana, the founder of the First Church of Cannabis has filed a defamation against the city's former police chief Rick Hite.  At a police news conference shortly before the church's inaugural service, the police chief warned that anyone smoking marijuana at the church would be prosecuted.  Referring to the Church's leader Bill Levin, the police chief said: "As Jim Jones once did within our state, he led a group of people into a place of no return. We don't want that to happen again in this state."