Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Governs Property Dispute In Hierarchical Church

In Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Monastery v. Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America, (MI App., March 19, 2019), a Michigan state appellate court held that the trial court should have applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to a church property dispute instead of the "neutral principles of law" approach.  Bishop Ioan Duvlea served as the abbot of the Holy Ascension Romanian Orthodox Christian Monastery until he was demoted and defrocked after a church trial.  A faction supporting him conveyed property belonging to the monastery to Holy Trinity, a new entity they formed.  The court, ruling in favor of the parent church body said in part:

This case requires determination whether Holy Trinity, a monastic corporate entity formed by a schismatic faction that left the ROEA, could claim ownership of the property that the faction conveyed from Holy Ascension before dissolving it. The ROEA contends that Holy Ascension owned but held in trust for the ROEA, a hierarchical church, the disputed property pursuant to church documents governing the ecclesiastical structure, polity, rules, discipline, and usage of the church with which Holy Ascension affiliated itself and to which it submitted....

In this case, the trial court failed to consider whether the ROEA constituted a hierarchical religious organization and did not examine the nature of the relationship of Holy Ascension with the ROEA and the Orthodox Church in America. The trial court failed to consider whether the actual adjudication of the legal claims in this case required the resolution of ecclesiastical questions, including the relationships between entities within the allegedly hierarchical religious denomination. Instead, the trial court stated without explanation that it found the dispute in this case merely secular requiring it to apply the neutral-principles-of-law approach. In so doing, the trial court erred.

The record reflects that the trial court substituted its interpretation of canonical texts and ignored the decisions of the ROEA relating to government of the religious polity. The trial court disregarded the evidence presented by the ROEA that required it to abstain and defer to the ROEA’s resolution of the property dispute. 

False Light Invasion of Privacy Suit By Pastor Is Dismissed

In Byrd v. DeVeaux, (D MD, March 4, 2019), a Maryland federal district court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention and ministerial exception grounds a false light invasion of privacy suit brought by Alicia Byrd, a pastor at an African Methodist Episcopal Church. Byrd sought over $14 million in damages for a report issued by the parent AME Church's Ministerial Efficiency Committee saying that she collateralized church property to build a non-profit facility without proper approval and for a letter alleging that she co-mingled church funds.  The court said in part:

Some of the independent  statements Plaintiff relies on are obviously fused with concepts of church law, polity, or doctrine, while others appear secular.... As a whole, the reports and letter constitute a matter of internal church discipline, and the statements contained within the documents are incapable of extrapolation from the overall ecclesiastical nature of the documents. Thus, Plaintiff's false light claim is barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine....

Here, Plaintiff's claim is rooted in the MEC's disciplinary review of Plaintiff and decision that Plaintiff should be placed on administrative leave.... [T]he ministerial exception would apply to Plaintiff's false light claim and would provide an additional reason to grant summary judgment to Defendants.

Baptist College's Attempt To Exit Baptist Convention Control Involves Ecclesiastical Determinations

In Executive Board of the Missouri Baptist Convention v. Missouri Baptist University, (MO App., Feb. 19, 2019), a Missouri state appellate court rejected attempts by Missouri Baptist University and The Baptist Home to amend their Articles of Incorporation to eliminate the Missouri Baptist Convention's right to select members of their boards of trustees and its right to veto amendments to their Articles.  The attempts to extricate themselves from Convention control followed an ideological battle within the Convention that moved it to the right.  In part the court held that certain affirmative defenses raised by the University concern ecclesiastical matters which civil courts cannot decide, saying:

[T]he University alleges that the Convention demanded that it ... refrain from teaching material that contradicted certain ideas which are clearly religious doctrine, such as the belief that the Earth was created in seven days roughly 6,000 years ago, or the belief that every living thing on Earth is descended from animals rescued from a flood on a vessel roughly 4,300 years ago.... The University claims that these demands ... “anticipatorily breached” provisions of a document entitled “A Christian Higher Education: A Statement of Purpose” which states ... that “... Christian education proceeds without fear into whatever knowledge may come.” ... Considering this defense as it currently is presented requires a court to rule – at least implicitly - on the truth of the story of Noah’s ark or Christian beliefs in creationism. We cannot conceive of a judicial inquiry which would impose on ecclesiastical matters more than this, nor can we find fault in the circuit court’s unwillingness to even attempt to find neutral grounds upon which it could rule when the color and content of the University’s allegations are so nakedly religious.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Does Not Require Dismissal of Negligent Supervision Claim

In Bourque v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC, (NC App., Nov. 20, 2018), a North Carolina appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not require dismissal of a suit alleging negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. However it does require dismissal of a negligent hiring claim. The suit alleges that a male church youth leader raped a 14-year old female who sought counsel from him about being bullied. Four years later, he repeatedly raped her again. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ claim is not barred by the First Amendment because determining whether Bishop Jugis and the Diocese knew or had reason to know of Defendant’s proclivities for sexual wrongdoing requires only the application of neutral principles of tort law, and “the application of a secular standard to secular conduct that is tortious is not prohibited by the Constitution.”

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.

3rd Circuit Will Not Adjudicate Pastor's Breach of Contract Claim

In Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburgh, (3d Cir., Sept. 5, 2018), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals refused to adjudicate a terminated minister's breach of employment contract claim, saying in part:

The Church argues that Lee materially breached the Agreement by failing to provide adequate spiritual leadership, as reflected in decreased church contributions and attendance during Lee’s tenure....

While the amount of church contributions and members is a matter of arithmetic, assessing Lee’s role, if any, in causing decreased giving and reduced membership in the Church requires a determination of what constitutes adequate spiritual leadership and how that translates into donations and attendance—questions that would impermissibly entangle the court in religious governance and doctrine prohibited by the Establishment Clause....

Moreover, parsing the precise reasons for Lee’s termination is akin to determining whether a church’s proffered religious-based reason for discharging a church leader is mere pretext, an inquiry the Supreme Court has explicitly said is forbidden by the First Amendment’s ministerial exception. Hosanna-Tabor....

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision. Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports on the decision.

Court Rejects Claim That Church Board Improperly Appointed Interim Pastor

In Leggett v. Moore, 2018 IL App (1st) 171101-U (IL App., Aug. 28, 2018), an Illinois appellate court held that the First Amendment does not prevent a court from deciding whether a church has violated it own bylaws when that does not raise issues of church doctrine. Plaintiffs alleged that True Zion church formed a new board of directors without complying with church bylaws, and improperly selected a new interim pastor. They contend that the church overseer was the person entitled to appoint an interim pastor, even though there is no mention of this in the bylaws. The court dismissed their claim, holding that "the duly elected board of directors affirmed the church bylaws and ratified the actions of the interim pastor during meetings at which plaintiffs attended but abstained from voting...."

Court Not Barred From Adjudicating Church Merger

In Pure Presbyterian Church of Washington v. Grace of God Presbyterian Church, (VA Sup. Ct., Aug. 16, 2018), the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's judgment enforcing a merger agreement between two local Korean speaking Presbyterian churches. Seven months after the congregations had been worshiping together, one of the congregations attempted to withdraw from the merger. The other congregation sued to validate the merger. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, saying in part:

There is nothing inherently ecclesiastical about an agreement to merge two entities.  Although a dispute over the existence or effect of a merger agreement could turn on questions of church doctrine, that is not the case here. Contract law principles are “neutral principles” of law that courts can employ to resolve a dispute between churches. Whether a church voted to merge is a question of fact that does not require a court to resolve an “ecclesiastical” question. Although the merger agreement spelled out who would continue to serve as pastor and which entity would survive, neither of the parties, nor the court, relied on any theological or ecclesiastical principles to resolve the issue of whether the churches agreed to merge and whether Grace Presbyterian honored its commitment under the merger agreement.

Defamation Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Orr v. Fourth Episcopal District African Methodist Episcopal Church, (IL App., Aug. 14, 2018), an Illinois state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation lawsuit brought by Rev. Charles Orr, the chairperson of a committee responsible for screening candidates for admission to the ministry within the AME Church. A woman whose application for the ministry was deferred charged Orr with sexual harassment. The charge was shared with others in the church hierarchy.  The court said in part:

Plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendants published Tamara’s statements to anyone outside of the internal disciplinary procedures of the AME Church. The statements made pursuant to the internal disciplinary procedures come within the ecclesiastic abstention doctrine and, accordingly, are protected by the first amendment.

WGLT News reports on the decision.

Deacon's Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

According to yesterday's News-Gazette, a Champaign, Illinois state trial court has dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a lawsuit by a former church deacon of the Jericho Missionary Baptist Church.  As described in the news report:

Formerly the chairman of the deacon board that hired Johnson as pastor in 2009, Halcrombe was seeking to fire Johnson some five years later after he and other former church leaders took another look at Johnson's credentials.

Johnson continues to be pastor of the church, but Halcrombe was dismissed as a deacon and removed from his post as registered agent of the church.

Halcrombe's lawsuit set out the details of what became a several-years-long conflict within the church over leadership, membership and money issues, and it sought a judgment to clarify who current church members are, the constitution and bylaws of the church and the authority and employment of Johnson.

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Minister's Breach of Contract Case

Last week, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburgh. (Audio of full oral arguments).  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception and excessive entanglement grounds a breach of contract suit by the church's pastor who was fired without being compensated under the contract clause relating to termination without cause.  (See prior posting.) Trib Total Media reports on the oral arguments.

Canada's Supreme Court: No Right To Fairness Review of Church Tribunal Decision

In Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Wall, (Can. Sup. Ct., May 31, 2018), Canada's Supreme Court rejected a challenge by a Jehovah's Witness that the church's Judicial Committee breached principles of natural justice and its duty of fairness in disfellowshipping him for sinful behavior.  He argued that the disfellowshipping caused other Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse to become clients of his real estate business. The court held:

[T]here is no free standing right to procedural fairness with respect to decisions taken by voluntary associations. Jurisdiction cannot be established on the sole basis that there is an alleged breach of natural justice or that the complainant has exhausted the organization’s internal processes. Jurisdiction depends on the presence of a legal right which a party seeks to have vindicated. Only where this is so can the courts consider an association’s adherence to its own procedures and (in certain circumstances) the fairness of those procedures.

The court also held that the issue is not justiciable, saying that "courts will not consider the merits of a religious tenet".  A press release by the court summarizes the decision. [Thanks to Nima Nematollahi for the lead.]

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.

Factual Questions Remain On Ecclesiastical Abstention and Ministerial Exception

In Kelley v. Decatur Baptist Church, (ND AL, May 1, 2018), an Alabama federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss a Title VII pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by a maintenance and child care employee of a church.  The court held that factual questions exist as to whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies. Plaintiff claims she was fired because she was pregnant.  Defendant contends she was fired because she engaged in sexual conduct outside of marriage in violation of Biblical standards.  The court also held that factual questions exist as to whether the ministerial exception doctrine applies.  Plaintiff challenged defendant's characterization of her as a minister charged with equipping, training, and evangelizing the next  generation according to biblical standards and morals.

District Court Again Dismisses Suit Over Board Positions On Sikh Dharma Entities

In Puri v. Khalsa, (D OR, April 26, 2018), an Oregon federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit originally filed in 2010 growing out of disputes following the death of Yogi Bhajan, an important Sikh spiritual leader in the United States.  The widow and three children of Yogi Bhajan claim that they are entitled to board positions in two nonprofit Sikh Dharma entities. In a 2017 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, reviewing  the trial court's dismissal solely on the basis of the pleadings, held that the suit should not have been dismissed on ministerial exception or ecclesiastical abstention grounds. (See prior posting.)  In yesterday's decision, however, the district court, ruling on a summary judgment motion, held that information outside the pleadings now before the court leads to the conclusion that defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted.

Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply When Defendant Is Not Plaintiff's Employer

In McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (ND MS, Jan. 18, 2018), a Mississippi federal district court rejected ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention defenses in a suit alleging intentional interference with business relationships, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At issue was the termination of plaintiff, the executive director of the General Mission Board of the Baptist Convention for Maryland/ Delaware, at the insistence of defendant NAMB. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply when the defendant in a lawsuit is not the employer of plaintiff. The court also held that adjudicating plaintiff's claims will not necessarily involve examination of church doctrine or internal church governance. The Message 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.

DC Appeals Court Remands In Controversy Over Outreach To GW Jewish Students

In Steiner v. American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), (DC Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2018), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals found no absolute bar to enforcement of a non-compete clause in a contract of a Chabad rabbi who had been popular with Jewish students at George Washington University. However the court held that the trial court had enforced the clause too broadly.  At issue are tensions that have extended for many years between the Chabad organization and Rabbi Yehuda Steiner who had been employed to engage in campus outreach for Chabad.  After Steiner was fired, he continued his religious outreach to students. The Chabad organization brought a breach of contract action. The trial court applied the doctrine of equitable reformation to issue an injunction against Steiner, but limited non-competition to two years, to serving currently enrolled students, and to an area within one mile from campus. In this appeal, the court held:

Here, neither the noncompete as originally drafted nor the clause as reformed in the trial court‘s modified preliminary injunction contains terms that would require religious interpretation and therefore preclude a civil court‘s review of this dispute.

However the appellate court held that the trial court's injunction was too broad insofar as it limits activities that Rabbi Steiner and his wife can continue in their personal capacities, rather than through a competing organization. the court added:

More than 100 GW students signed a petition attesting to the special personal relationship they shared with their religious leader, Rabbi Steiner.  In such circumstances, the public interest may bear on the level of scrutiny we will apply to a decision to judicially modify a restrictive covenant.....

In this same vein, the profession of religious minister or rabbi is unique in that the tasks performed in an employment context overlap to a large extent with actions such a professional might undertake in his or her free time, without expectation of payment, as a member of the community engaging in religious practice or dialogue. It is thus imperative that an employer wishing to prohibit certain behavior post-termination narrowly tailor with specific language a restrictive covenant....

The court also remanded for clarification of a non-interference provision, and for a determination of whether the non-compete applies to Rabbi Steiner's wife as well.

Negligent Hiring Suit Against Catholic Diocese May Proceed

In Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 45 (CT Super. Ct., Jan. 5, 2018), a Connecticut trial court refused to dismiss a suit alleging childhood sexual abuse of plaintiff at a Catholic school. The court said in part:

[P]laintiff has alleged negligent hiring and supervision of Brother Paul in his role as a school administrator, executive director, and teacher. Even if the plaintiff had alleged that Brother Paul was a priest ..., the "theological perceptions" of Brother Paul are irrelevant for the purposes of his fitness for ministry. Instead, any determination of whether the defendants evaluated Brother Paul's fitness for acting as a priest and teacher at the Academy center on his criminal conduct and/or propensity for the same.... [B]ecause the plaintiff has broadly alleged a secular negligent hiring and supervision claim as to Brother Paul's role as a school administrator, executive director, and teacher, the defendants' motion to dismiss ... is denied.