11th Circuit: Exclusion of Anti-LGBT Group From Charitable Donation Program Is Upheld

In Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (11th Cir., July 28, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Alabama federal district court's dismissal of a defamation and religious discrimination suit brought by a Christian ministry and media company.  At issue is Amazon's customer-choice charitable donation program which excludes as possible beneficiaries organizations that are designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Coral Ridge was listed as a hate group because of its religious beliefs opposing LGBTQ conduct. The court dismissed the defamation claim because plaintiff failed to adequately plead actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth). The court dismissed Coral Ridge's claim of religious discrimination in violation of the public accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, saying in part:

[T]he district court was correct in finding that Coral Ridge’s interpretation of Title II would violate the First Amendment by essentially forcing Amazon to donate to organizations it does not support.... 

Coral Ridge’s proposed interpretation of Title II would infringe on Amazon’s First Amendment right to engage in expressive conduct and would not further Title II’s purpose....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Deacon's Defamation Suit Against Diocese Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Diocese of Lubbock, (TX Sup. Ct., June 11, 2021), the Texas Supreme Court in a 7-1 decision, held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires the trial court to dismiss an action for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by against the Diocese of Lubbock by one of its ordained deacons. The deacon's name was included on a published list of those against whom credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor have been raised. The deacon contended that he was wrongly included on the list because the person accusing him was not a minor. The court said in part:

[T]he Diocese ... based the scope of its investigation on the canonical meaning of minor: “a person who habitually lacks the use of reason,” which includes “vulnerable adults.” Thus, a court would have to evaluate whether the Diocese had credible allegations against Guerrero under the canonical meaning of “minor.” This would necessarily entail a secular investigation into the Diocese’s understanding of the term “minor,” whether a court agrees that the woman he allegedly sexually abused qualifies as a “minor” under Canon Law, and whether the allegations it possesses were sufficiently “credible.” ...

This inquiry would not only cause a court to evaluate whether the Diocese properly applied Canon Law but would also permit the same court to interlineate its own views of a Canonical term. Indeed, any investigation would necessarily put to question the internal decision making of a church judicatory body.

Justice Blacklock filed a concurring opinion. Justice Boyd filed a lengthy dissenting opinion. The briefs and oral arguments in the case are available online.

In a companion case in a per curiam order in Diocese of Lubbock v. Guerrero,(TX Sup. Ct., June 11, 2021), the court vacated and dismissed a trial court order in a suit invoking the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

Ministerial Exception Leads To Dismissal Of Part of Nuns' Sexual Harassment Claims

In Brandenburg v. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, (SD NY, June 1, 2021), two nuns who formerly worked at a Greek Orthodox monastery sued the Archdiocese and several clergy members for sexual harassment by Father Makris at the monastery. One of the plaintiffs also sued over the conduct of Father Makris when he was Dean of Students at the religious college she attended in Massachusetts. When the student reported a sexual assault by a male student, Makris made her marry her attacker to cure the assault.

Invoking the ministerial exception doctrine, the court dismissed plaintiffs' sex discrimination claims and their retaliation claims to the extent they are based on tangible employment action (hiring, firing, job assignments, promotion, compensation).  However the court held that the claims for constructive discharge survive, as do the claims for retaliation to the extent they are based on harassment and not a tangible employment action. Some of plaintiffs' defamation claims also survived the motion to dismiss.

Kosher Restaurant Sues Certifying Agency For Defamation

New York Post reported this week on a lawsuit filed last month in a state trial court in Nassau County, New York by a kosher restaurant against the local kosher certifying agency that the restaurant used to hire. Last July, the restaurant, Chimichurri Charcoal Chicken, as well as two other establishments, switched from Vaad Hakashrus of the Five Towns and Far Rockaway to a rival, less expensive, certifying agency called Mehadrin of the Five Towns. This led the Vaad to issue a statement, alleged to be defamatory, criticizing Chimichurri's kosher food standards and urging residents not to eat there. The restaurant's lawsuit alleges:

The existing Vaad does not want competition, is afraid of the competition, and is trying to use its power to drive them — or attempt to drive them — out of business.

Chimichurri initially attempted to resolve the dispute in a rabbinical court, but the rabbis who head the Vaad did not show up for the hearing. This led the rabbinical court to grant unusual permission for Chimichurri to sue in secular court. The Vaad's lawyer told the New York Post:

Rabbis have an obligation and a right under the First Amendment to guide their communities with respect to religious issues and this does constitute a religious issue.

The Vaad has said that it has legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest.

Iowa Supreme Court Dismisses Fiduciary and Defamation Claims Against Church and Pastors

In Koster v. Harvest Bible Chapel- Quad Cities,(IA Sup. Ct., May 21, 2021), the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit against a church and three of its pastors by a congregant who alleged defamation and breach of fiduciary duty. The court summarized the facts:

Two members of a church went through a fractious divorce. One member alleged that the other member had abused their children, allegations that turned out to be groundless. Their pastor, however, believed the allegations and sent emails to fellow pastors, church staff, and a discipleship group. The emails repeated the allegations to some extent, while also expressing support for the member making the allegations. After the allegations were discredited, the member who had been victimized by the allegations sued the pastor and the church on several tort theories....

We find that the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim cannot go forward because it would require consideration of the church’s doctrine and religious practices. We also find that the plaintiff’s defamation claim is subject to a qualified privilege and that plaintiff has not overcome that privilege with evidence of actual malice.

Defamation Action By Bishop In Russian Orthodox Church Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Belya v. Metropolitan Hilarion, (SD NY, May 19, 2021), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a defamation complaint by a leader of the Russian Orthodox Christian Church in the United States against various other Church leaders who oppose plaintiff's election as Bishop of Miami. According to the court, defendants, in a letter to the church's Synod, made various allegations:

Principally, the letter alleges that the election of Belya never actually occurred; that the results of Belya’s election were fabricated; that the communications from Hilarion to Russia were falsified, either with Hilarion’s knowledge or without; and that the letter from Archbishop Gavriil confirming that Belya had instituted the required changes of practice was likewise falsified. The Olkhovskiy Group requested, in light these allegations and additional unspecified complaints from persons in Florida, that Belya be suspended from clerical functions until the completion of a full investigation. This letter was disseminated among the members of the New York Synod, to parishes, churches, monasteries, and other institutions within ROCOR, as well as more broadly to online media outlets. 

According to Belya, after the September 3 Letter was sent, he was denied all access to Hilarion and was suspended from performing his duties as spiritual leader of his parish....

Rejecting an ecclesiastical abstention argument, the court concluded that the lawsuit "may be resolved by appealing to neutral principles of law. Plaintiff’s claim centers on Defendants’ allegations that he forged the various letters at issue that led to the confirmation of his election as Bishop of Miami."  The court went on:

Belya does not ask this Court to determine whether his election was proper or whether he should be reinstated to his role as Bishop of Miami, and the Court would not consider such a request under the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention....

Defendants argued that the statements at issue could not be defamatory because they were merely allegations or opinions.  The court concluded, however, that at least one of the challenged statements were assertions of fact, not just allegations.

New Hampshire Priest Sues Conservative Catholic Website For Defamation

A suit alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress was filed last Friday in a New Hampshire federal district court by a New Hampshire Catholic priest against the controversial Church Militant website and persons affiliated with it. The complaint (full text) in de Laire v. Voris, (D NH, filed 2/5/2021), contends that false attacks on the character of Father Georges de Laire were published on the traditionalist website and on YouTube by Gary Michael Voris, his Church Militant media company and another reporter for the company. The false attacks began after Father de Laire issued a decree banning the New Hampshire-based St. Benedict Center from holding itself out as being affiliated with the Catholic Church or purporting to hold Roman Catholic religious services on its property.  According to the complaint, St. Benedict Center champions the views put forward in the 1940's by Father Leonard Feeney who "became known for incendiary and hate-filled speeches, primarily anti-Semitic in nature." Feeney was ultimately expelled from the Jesuit Order and excommunicated from the Catholic Church over these views and another doctrinal disagreement. [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

5th Circuit Says Fired Employee's Suit Does Not Necessarily Require Deciding Ecclesiastical Questions

In McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (5th Cir., July 16, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a suit by the former executive director of the General Mission Board of the Baptist Convention for Maryland/Delaware ("BCMD").  He alleged that the North American Mission Board ("NAMB") intentionally made false statements about him that led to his termination. He also claimed that NAMB posted his picture at their headquarters to tell people that he was not to be trusted.  The district court relied on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss the case.  The 5th Circuit, reversing, said in part:

In order to resolve McRaney’s claims, the court will need to determine (1) whether NAMB intentionally and maliciously damaged McRaney’s business relationships by falsely claiming that he refused to meet with Ezell,... (2) whether NAMB’s statements about McRaney were false, defamatory, and at least negligently made ...; and (3) whether NAMB intentionally caused McRaney to suffer foreseeable and severe emotional distress by displaying his picture at its headquarters.... At this early stage of the litigation, it is not clear that any of these determinations will require the court to address purely ecclesiastical questions.

Abortion Rights Groups Sues For Defamation

A lawsuit was filed last week in a Texas state trial court by an abortion rights group charging Right To Life East Texas and its director with defamation.  The complaint (full text) in The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity v. Dickson, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 6/11/2020), alleges that plaintiff has been defamed as part of defendants' successful efforts to get various municipalities to enact ordinances, contingent on the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, declaring abortion to be murder. Defendants have labeled plaintiff a criminal organization. The complaint alleges in part:

To be perfectly clear, Lilith Fund is not arguing it has been defamed because Defendants believe or argue that abortion is murder in some moral sense; instead, Lilith Fund has been defamed because Defendants have falsely accused it of assisting in the commission of the specific crime of murder. Lilith Fund has not been defamed because Defendants hope one day to make abortion a crime, but because Defendants presently state that Lilith Fund is, at this moment, breaking the law. These statements are baseless and provably false, and Defendants knew these statements were false when they were uttered as their own statements and the text of the ordinance itself demonstrates. In Texas, this is enough, on its own, to support a claim of defamation, even in the absence of damages.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Defamation Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Entanglement Doctrine

In Lippard v. Holleman, (NC App., May 19, 2020), the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a former church pianist and vocalist against the Baptist church's pastor and its minister of music. A dispute over assignment of a vocal solo had escalated leading to plaintiff's dismissal. Plaintiff sued over various statements made in connection with her termination. The court held:

... [D]etermining the truth or falsity of Defendants’ alleged defamatory statements—where the content of those statements concerns whether Plaintiffs complied with [Diamond Hill Baptist Church's] practices—would require us to interpret or weigh ecclesiastical matters, an inquiry not permitted by the First Amendment....

We affirm the trial court’s order on the ground that all statements Plaintiffs challenge are barred by the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine.

Chief Justice McGee concurred in part and dissented in part.  [Thanks to Will Esser via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Tel Aviv Mayor Sues New Transportation Minister For Libel Over Claims About Tefillin Stands

Yeshiva World reported yesterday on a libel lawsuit filed in Israel by Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai against newly-appointed Transportation Minister Miri Regev.  The suit, filed in Tel Aviv- Jaffa Magistrate's Court, seeks damages equivalent to $142,000 (US). According to the report:

The lawsuit refers to public statements Regev made at a February campaign event, at which she accused Huldai of coming out against Judaism and freedom of religion by banning Tel Aviv residents from putting on tefillin.

Huldai says that in February, the city of Tel Aviv banned all kinds of stands (including tefillin stands which urge passers-by to put on phylacteries) within 100 meters of schools and other public buildings that serve minors. He says that Regev intentionally distorted the facts and refused to correct her statements. He says that he had no input into the decision and that it did not single out tefillin stands.

Orthodox Jewish Family Ejected From Flight Sue American Airlines

An Orthodox Jewish family filed suit in a Texas federal district court last week charging American Airlines with religious, racial and national origin discrimination, as well as defamation, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit comes after the husband, wife and their 19-month old daughter were removed from an American Airlines flight. The complaint (full text) in Adler v. American Airlines, Inc., (SD TX, filed 1/28/2020) alleges that the Adlers were told by an American Airlines agent to deplane. Once off the plane, they were told that they had been ejected on instructions from the pilot because of extremely offensive body odor. In exchanges that followed, the Adlers rejected the claim, but the airline's agent allegedly told the Adlers "that he knew that Orthodox Jews take baths once a week." The complaint goes on to allege that an online search for "body odor" turns up the Adlers' name. Courthouse News Service and Detroit Free Press report on the lawsuit.

Priest Sues Archdiocese Over Inclusion In List of Accused Clergy

A lawsuit was filed last month in a Missouri state trial court by a former priest who claims that the Archdiocese of St. Louis defamed him when it included his name on a widely circulated list of clergy for whom there are substantiated allegations of sexual abuse of a minor. The complaint (full text) in Toohey v. Archdiocese of Saint Louis, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 11/3/2019) contends that the allegations against plaintiff are false, that the Archdiocese never notified plaintiff of the allegations and never gave him an opportunity to rebut the charges. St. Louis Post Dispatch reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Denies Review Of Discovery Directed To Church

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Presbyterian Church v. Edwards, (Docket No. 18-1441, cert. denied 10/7/2019). In the case the Kentucky Supreme Court allowed discovery to proceed in a defamation suit against the Presbyterian Church to the extent necessary to determine if the church is entitled to ecclesiastical immunity. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court in June denied a stay in the case.

SPLC's "Hate Group" Designation For Christian Ministry For LGBT Views Is Protected By 1st Amendment

In Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (MD AL, Sept. 19, 2019), an Alabama federal district court, in an interesting 141-page opinion, dismissed claims by a Christian television ministry against the Southern Poverty Law Center and Amazon's charitable program. As summarized by the court:

The lawsuit is based largely on Coral Ridge’s allegations that, because of its religious opposition to homosexual conduct, SPLC has designated it as a “hate group” and that, because of this designation, Amazon and AmazonSmile have excluded it from receiving donations through the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program.

Coral Ridge has three claims against SPLC: a state claim that its “hate group” designation is defamatory and federal claims for false association and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Coral Ridge has a single claim against the Amazon defendants: a federal claim that they excluded it from the AmazonSmile charitable-giving program based on religion, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.

The ministry conceded that it was a "public figure" for purposes of its defamation claim Engaging in a lengthy discussion of the meaning of "hate group", the court rejected the ministry's claim because "An alleged defamatory statement is generally not provable as false when it labels the plaintiff with a term that has an imprecise and debatable meaning." The court went on to say that even if there were a commonly understood definition of "hate group",  the defamation claim should still be dismissed:

To find actual malice just because SPLC publicized a meaning of “hate group” that conflicted with the common understanding of the term would severely undermine debate and free speech about a matter of public concern. This is because, even if the term had achieved a commonly understood meaning, that meaning would not be fixed forever, but rather could evolve through public debate. To sanction a speaker for promoting a genuinely held dissenting view of the meaning of “hate group” would be akin to punishing a speaker for advocating new conceptions of terms like “terrorist,” “extremist,” “sexist,” “racist,” “radical

The court rejected the ministry's Lanham Act claims, finding that they are subject to the same heightened First Amendment standards, not the lower commercial speech standards.

The court also rejected the ministry's claim that Amazon violated the public accommodation provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in excluding it from its charitable giving program, saying in part:

Even if it were assumed that the Amazon defendants are places of public accommodation subject to Title II, seeking to receive donations through the AmazonSmile program does not qualify as a service, privilege, or advantage, etc. protected by the statute’s anti-discrimination prohibition. This is because the Amazon defendants limit the ability to receive such donations exclusively to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations and therefore do not make that ability open to the public. Moreover, an alternative ground for dismissing the claim is that Coral Ridge has not plausibly alleged that the Amazon defendants discriminated against it based on religion.

The court concluded its opinion:

The court should not be understood as even suggesting that Coral Ridge is or is not a “hate group.” It has merely held that SPLC’s labeling of the group as such is protected by the First Amendment....  

SPLC issued a press release announcing the decision.

California Priest Sues Accusers In Defamation Lawsuit

A defamation lawsuit was filed earlier this month in a California state trial court by Fresno, California, Catholic priest Msgr. Craig Harrison who has been accused of sexually assaulting an altar boy, as well as of other sexual misconduct. The complaint (full text) in Harrison v. Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., filed 8//6/2019), alleges that the organization Roman Catholic Faithful and its president Stephen Brady at a press conference falsely accused Harrison of sexually abusing two high school students. An investigation by the Bakersfield police department has cleared Harrison, but a press release from the organization Church Militant contends that the investigation ignored numerous witnesses against Harrison who has served as the police department's chaplain.

$4.1M Damages Awarded To Muslim Comedian Against Neo-Nazi Website

Religion News Service reports that in a suit by Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah against the publishers of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, an Ohio federal district court awarded plaintiff $4.1 million in damages for defamation.  In Obeidallah v. Anglin, (SD OH, June 13, 2019), the court awarded damages implementing its earlier determination that defendants acted with actual malice when they falsely claimed that Obeidallah was part of ISIS and was the mastermind behind the 2017 bombing of a concert that killed 22 people. The court also issued an injunction directing defendants to forthwith remove from its website, Twitter and other social media accounts any reference to Obeidallah that describes him as a terrorist or a member of ISIS.

Supreme Court Denies Stay Sought By Presbyterian Church In Defamation Suit

Today the U.S. Supreme Court in Presbyterian Church v. Edwards, (Docket No. 18A1126, June 3, 2019) (Order List) denied an application to stay enforcement while a petition for certiorari is filed of an order by the Kentucky Supreme Court (see prior posting).  The Kentucky Supreme Court allowed discovery to proceed in a defamation suit against the Presbyterian Church to the extent necessary to determine if the church is entitled to ecclesiastical immunity. The Church claims that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes this.

Certiorari Denied In Priest's Libel Suit Against Diocese

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Gallagher v. Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc., (Docket No. 18-964, certiorari denied, 4/22/2019) (Order List).  In the case,  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. (See prior posting.) The Florida Supreme Court had denied review in the case.  South Florida Sun Sentinel reports on yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari.

Chicago Church Drops Defamation Suit

RNS reports that the Chicago-area megachurch Harvest Bible Chapel will drop a defamation lawsuit it had filed against a former teacher at the church's school and a former church member who have posted criticism of the church's founding pastor on their blog.  The move comes after a Cook County trial court refused to enjoin the online publicizing of documents that would be produced during discovery in the case.  In a statement posted on its website, the church said in part:

... [T]he court appears unwilling to protect our many friends, including those with whom we seek to reconcile. In good conscience we cannot knowingly subject innocent people, in many instances against their will, to a full subpoena process.

Surely the Lord could have caused the court to rule in our favor.... We receive these outcomes as God’s direction and have instructed our legal counsel to drop the suit entirely. With this decision, we can again focus our energies on continued growth in personal and organizational faults we have owned, enduring what is false, and striving to mitigate the damage such attacks bring to our church family and friends.