11th Circuit: Clergyman's Right To Retirement Benefits Was Ecclesiastical Matter

In Myhre v. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Reform Movement American Union International Missionary Society, (11th Cir., Jan 2, 2018), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a suit by a retired clergyman who contended that his retirement benefits were wrongfully terminated.  Concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the subject-matter of the dispute was purely ecclesiastical in nature, the appeals court said in part:

Myhre’s claims, which were predicated on his defrocking, his excommunication, and the termination of his retirement benefits due to a “theological disagreement” would have required encroachment into matters of church dogma and governance. Based on “the separation of church and state principles required by the [E]stablishment and [F]ree [E]xercise [C]lauses of the [F]irst [A]mendment,” ..., the district court could not interfere with the purely ecclesiastical decisions of the American Union regarding Myhre’s fitness to serve in the clergy or to remain a member of the denomination.

Canada's Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Ecclesiastical Abstention Case

On Nov. 2, the Supreme Court of Canada heard oral argument (video of full oral arguments) in Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Wall.  Links to the briefs of the parties and a number of intervenors are also available online.  ReligiousLiberty.tv reports on the case.  In the case, the Alberta Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that Canadian civil courts have jurisdiction to review a formal decision by a Jehovah's Witness congregation to disfellowship one of its members. (See prior posting.)  [Thanks to Michael Peabody for the lead.]

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Bar School Administrator's Contract Claim

In Saint Augustine School v. Cropper, (KY Sup. Ct., Nov. 2, 2017), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent the former lay administrator of a Catholic elementary school from asserting a breach-of-contract claim, saying in part:

Saint Augustine's justification for the Cropper's dismissal stems from declining student enrollment and shrinking revenues. No matter the extent of Cropper's involvement in the religious life of Saint Augustine; adjudicating her damages claim for breach of her employment contract does not require the secular court's "wading into doctrinal waters"; it is simply the termination of the lay administrator at a parochial school. Even if Cropper had been a prominent actor in the religious life of the community, unless Saint Augustine- fired her for reasons associated with the application of church doctrine or governance, the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine would not apply.

In the case, the school had specifically disclaimed reliance on the ministerial exception defense.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Requires Dismissal of Suit Over Student's Forced Withdrawal From High School

In In re the Episcopal School of Dallas, Inc., (TX App, Oct. 11, 2017), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to a faith-based school, even though the school was not owned or operated by a church, saying in part:

[T]he Does cite no authority for the premise that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires a showing that an institution’s “primary purpose” is religion. More importantly, asking this Court to examine and compare the contours of different religions or measure the internal application of Episcopal precepts to the school’s policies or its conduct here seeks to have us engage in the exact analysis the First Amendment precludes. 

It ordered the trial court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a suit by a high school student who was forced to withdraw from school because of marijuana use during his lunch hour and his conduct surrounding investigation of the incident.  the court concluded:

The Does’ claims all concern a faith-based organization’s internal affairs, governance, administration, membership, or disciplinary procedures and are protected religious decisions. Thus, the Does’ suit has no secular aspect for the courts to consider.

Tennessee Supreme Court: Resolves Approach In Church Property Dispute

In Church of God In Christ, Inc. v. L.M. Haley Ministries, Inc., (TN Sup. Ct., Sept. 21, 2017), the Tennessee Supreme Court, in a church property dispute, concluded that a break-away local church held its property in trust for its parent body, Church of God In Christ, Inc. The court held that in church property disputes, Tennessee courts should apply the "hybrid" version of the "neutral principles" doctrine:

In applying the hybrid approach, Tennessee courts may consider any relevant statutes, the language of the deeds and any other documents of conveyance, charters and articles of incorporation, and any provisions regarding property ownership that may be included in the local or hierarchical church constitutions or governing documents. But ... a civil court must enforce a trust in favor of the hierarchical church, even if the trust language appears only in the constitution or governing documents of the hierarchical religious organization.

The court also held that civil courts should defer to the decision of the Ecclesiastical Council as to who should be pastor of the church.

A concurring opinion by Justice Curry questioned the majority's treatment of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine as a bar to jurisdiction rather than as an affirmative defense.  The Court also issued a press release summarizing its decision.

Trial Judge Upholds Catholic School's Refusal To Re-enroll Students After Disruptive Year

NJ Advance Media reports that a New Jersey trial court judge yesterday, in a three-hour long decision read from the bench, upheld a Catholic school's refusal to re-admit two girls for this year after their father sued the school to get one of the girls on the boy's basketball team. The judge agreed with school officials that the parents had been disruptive to the school community, saying that the court does not have the authority "to meddle" in the school's ecclesiastical decision. The Archdiocese of Newark issued a statement on the decision.

Court Refuses To Enforce Arbitration Award In Church Control Dispute

In Patterson v. Shelton, (ED PA, Aug. 11, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an attempt to obtain enforcement of an arbitration award entered over ten years ago in a dispute over control of the General Assembly of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The underlying litigation began 22 years ago.  the court said in part:

Petitioner seeks to have this Court adjudicate a church controversy by confirming an Arbitration Award, albeit one that was vacated, which would require extensive inquiry into church matters. A solution to the parties’ problems involves more than mere application of neutral principles of law. It involves a deeper look into the church’s control over its leaders, how they acquire and maintain authority, and how the church is being managed.... Probing deeper into these matters would do exactly what the law prohibits courts from doing: becoming entangled in church issues.

The court also relied on several other grounds in dismissing the case.

Religious School Asserts Ecclesiastical Abstention Defense

As reported by Houston Chronicle, an Episcopal elementary school in Galveston, Texas has asserted an ecclesiastical abstention defense to a lawsuit filed by the mother of a student alleging an inadequate response by the school to bullying and racial harassment of her sixth-grade son.  Plaintiff says that 3 of her son's classmates gave her son a piece of paper folded to resemble a KKK hood, and bullied them in other ways. The school only required the students to send apology notes, and gave a one day suspension to one of the students.  The defendants' motion to dismiss (full text) in Beans v. Trinity Episcopal School, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 8/1/2017) argues:

As a religious institution, Trinity has a constitutionally-protected freedom to make decisions regarding the discipline of its students without judicial interference. The courts cannot second guess those decisions, even in the guise of purportedly "secular" causes of action arising from tort principles. Plaintiffs' claims ask the Court to intrude upon Trinity's internal affairs and governance relating to discipline, investigation, and standards of conduct—which is precisely what the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine was designed to prevent.

Case Remanded For Determination of Whether Church Is Hierarchical

In  Slagle v. Church of the First Born of Tennessee, (TN App., Aug. 7, 2017), a case involving a dispute over control of church property after a split among church members, a Tennessee appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the church was congregational or hierarchical. In doing so, the court noted that a church may be congregational in some respects while it is hierarchical in other respects. The court noted that here the relevant question is whether the church is congregational for purposes of ownership and control of property.

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.

Court Dismisses Husband's Suit Over Pastor's Affair With Wife

In Laidlaw v. Converge Midatlantic, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 203 (PA Com. Pl., July 19, 2017), a Pennsylvania trial court dismissed a suit brought by a husband who is seeking damages for a sexual affair between his wife and the pastor of the couple's church.  In prior years the pastor had furnished marriage counseling to the couple.  While the suit was framed as claims for negligence, infliction of emotional distress, fraud and defamation, the court held that these are in reality "heart balm" torts which were eliminated by case law and statute in Pennsylvania decades ago.  The court added:

Even if Appellant's claims were not barred as obsolete heart balm torts, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution requires this Court to dismiss them because they would constitute impermissible state intrusion upon religion. Appellant's claims against his church and pastor for the affair are wholly based in religious doctrine, perceived social pressures from his religious community, and his own faith-his personal faith in his pastor and in his church. Therefore, the Court would be forced to interpret and evaluate church canons, discipline, and faith to determine the merit of his claims.

Priest's Defamation Suit Against Diocese Survives Ecclesiastical Abstention Claim

According to the Palm Beach Post, in a July 11 four-page opinion a Florida state trial court judge refused to dismiss a defamation suit brought by Catholic priest Rev. John Gallagher against his former diocese.  In response to Gallagher's claim that the diocese attempted to cover up sexual abuse by a visiting priest, the diocese posted responses on its website and in a letter read at all masses in the diocese.  The diocese (which contends that it reported the abuse to law enforcement authorities immediately) called Gallagher a liar who needed professional assistance.  The court held that the defamation claim "can be assessed using neutral principles of law and without resolving a church controversy."  It is expected that the diocese will appeal, arguing that the dispute involves church discipline and internal policies for handling complaints. (See prior related posting.)

Court Rules Church Factions Must Share Church Building

In Mullins v. Wicker, (OH App., June 22, 2017), an Ohio appellate court in a 2-1 decision, agreed with a trial court's decision in a case in which two competing factions of the Little Ettie Old Regular Baptist Church in Beaver, Ohio both claimed ownership of the church's property.  The trial court had held that there are two congregations each equally entitled to church property and issued an injunction specifying how the two factions would share use of the church building.  The appeals court majority affirmed.

Judge Harsha dissenting argued that the court should have applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, even though neither party raised the jurisdictional issue. He argued that the dispute here is essentially over church doctrine.  He added that even if the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply, the trial court abused its discretion in finding that there are two competing congregations equally entitled to ownership of church property.

Michigan Supreme Court Holds Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Is Not Jurisdictional

In Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc., (MI Sup. Ct., June 27, 2017), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine:

requires a case-specific inquiry that informs how a court must adjudicate certain claims within its subject matter jurisdiction; it does not determine whether the court has such jurisdiction in the first place.

The court explained:

What matters ...  is whether the actual adjudication of a particular legal claim would require the resolution of ecclesiastical questions....

With that understanding, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for it to decide whether Michigan's Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act applies to religious schools.  At issue in the case is a Catholic high school's denial of admission to a student who contends that the denial was because of her learning disability.

1st Amendment Requires Dismissal of Some Priest Sexual Abuse Allegations

In Roy v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 2017 Conn. Super. LEXIS 774 (CT Super., April 24, 2017), plaintiff sued claiming that from 1990 to 1996 when he served as an altar boy at a Pomfret, Connecticut Catholic church he was sexually assaulted hundreds of times by a now-deceased priest, Fr. Paul Herbert.  While the trial court permitted plaintiff to move ahead on a number of his claims, it dismissed three of them on the ground that these would impermissibly entangle the court in matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law. The allegations that were dismissed were that the church failed to adequately evaluate the mental fitness of Herbert to serve as a Catholic priest, and the allegation that plaintiff suffered emotional and spiritual loss, substantially affecting his belief in his faith. The court held that plaintiff's other claims, such as the failure to adequately train and supervise Herbert, can be decided by applying neutral principles of law.

Defamation Suit Against Minister Not Necessarily Barred By Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

Lippard v. Holleman, (NC App., May 2, 2017) is a case in which plaintiff Kim Lippard who was fired as church pianist and vocalist in a Baptist church where she had served for 34 years sued the church's senior minister and its minister of music for defamation. Her husband also sued. Kim's firing ultimately went through the board of deacons, the church's personnel committee and then was referred to a meeting of the entire congregation.  It was alleged, among other charges, that at the meeting the senior minister read a "twenty page diatribe" against Kim and her husband.  In the case, the court of appeals vacated the trial court's dismissal of the suit, in part on procedural grounds.  But the court also refused to conclude that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine required dismissal of the suit, saying in part:

Our courts have not yet considered whether a statement issued by a religious leader or made from the pulpit creates an actionable defamation claim capable of adjudication under neutral principles of tort law. However, several federal courts and out-of-state courts have confronted this question and concluded the First Amendment does not create a categorical bar to such defamation claims....

This line between an ecclesiastical and a secular dispute can be difficult to discern, and requires an intensive inquiry into the relevant facts and applicable laws. Defamation and religious questions are legally contextual. Libel may sometimes cloak itself in religious terminology, but that would not prevent civil adjudication of a claim.

No 1st Amendment Bar To Deciding Catholic College's Student Expusion

In Chestnut Hill College v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, (PA Commnwlth. Ct., April 7, 2017), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (an appellate court) held that a Catholic college’s decision to expel a student is reviewable by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.  The college expelled an African American student a few weeks before his scheduled graduation, allegedly because the student retained some of the proceeds from events that were held for a charitable cause.  The student claimed this was a pretext for racial discrimination.

The court held that Catholic colleges and universities are "public accommodations" under the state's Human Relations Act.  It held that adjudicating the claim would not involve unconstitutional entanglement between church and state, saying:

Student’s claims do not require the Commission to construe religious doctrine. Importantly, College did not identify any Catholic doctrine as grounds for Student’s expulsion.

The court also emphasized that the college "did not cite any religious doctrine based defense to Student’s racial discrimination claims."

Ecclesiastical Abstention Leads To Dismissal of Suit By Expelled Student For Priesthood

In Doe v. Pontifical College Josephinum, (OH App., March 30, 2017), an Ohio appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit by a former student who was dismissed from an academic program designed to prepare him to become a priest.  The student was dismissed after the school's Vice Rector determined that there was a "credible accusation of homosexual activity."  The student sued for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unauthorized disclosure of confidential educational records, and unjust enrichment. In an internal canon law appeal of his dismissal, the student was unable to prepare a defense because he could not obtain relevant records from the school.  The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit, saying in part:

Although appellant argues that the trial court could resolve his claims without addressing ecclesiastic issues, it is clear that the alleged unjust dismissal lies at the core of each claim. Therefore, evaluating those claims would require the common pleas court to consider issues related to the Josephinum's disciplinary process and the dismissal. 

Pastor's Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Speller v. St. Stephen Lutheran Church of Drayton Plains, (MI App., March 28, 2017), the Michigan Court of Appeals applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit brought by a Lutheran pastor challenging actions that forced his resignation from St. Stephen's Lutheran Church. He claims this led to his "blacklisting" in the church and his inability to practice his profession.  The court rejected plaintiff's argument that it should decide the case using neutral principles of law, instead of dismissing it, saying in part:

His tort and breach of contract claims arose in the context of St. Stephen’s decision whether to retain plaintiff as its pastor and the LCMS and Reverend Maier’s decision whether to retain plaintiff as a minister on the LCMS synodical roster. Resolution of these claims would necessarily require the trial court to inquire into the propriety of those decisions and defendants’ conduct relative to those decisions, which clearly relate to internal church matters, including church discipline, church governance, and plaintiff’s employment as a Lutheran pastor. These issues would require the court to impermissibly stray into ecclesiastical polity.

Cert. Denied In Church Retirement Plan Fiduciary Duty Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Bacon (Docket No. 16-910, cert. denied 2/27/2017). (Order List.)  In the case, a Minnesota state court of appeals held that the First Amendment does not prevent a civil court from adjudicating a challenge to the manner in which the Lutheran Church retirement plans were managed. Plan participants claimed breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and fraud and concealment in the administration and management of the Plans. (See prior posting.)