No 1st Amendment Bar To Suit Over Board Seats In Two Sikh Dharma Entities

In Puri v. Khalsa, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, vacating the district court's dismissal, held that neither the ministerial exception doctrine nor the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit by the widow and children of the deceased spiritual leader of the Sikh Dharma faith alleging they are being frozen out of board positions in two nonprofit Sikh Dharma entities. In rejecting application of the ministerial exception doctrine, the court said in part:

[T]he pleadings do not allege the board members have any ecclesiastical duties or privileges. In assessing the responsibilities attendant to the board positions, it is relevant that the entities involved are not themselves churches, but rather corporate parents of a church. SSSC’s primary responsibility appears to be holding title to church property, and UI, in addition to being ... the direct corporate parent of the Sikh Dharma church – owns and controls a portfolio of for-profit and nonprofit corporations, including a major security contractor and a prominent tea manufacturer. Although the complaint alleges the board members have “fiduciary duties to UI and SSSC to hold assets in trust for the benefit of the Sikh Dharma community,” it is not clear on the face of the complaint that these duties are “religious” or “reflect[] a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.”

Turning to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court said:

Nothing in the character of th[e] defense will require a jury to evaluate religious doctrine or the ‘reasonableness’ of the religious practices followed . . . Under these circumstances, the availability of the neutral-principles approach obviates the need for ecclesiastical abstention.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Ecclesiastical Abstention and RFRA Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Docket No. 16-210, cert. denied 11/28/2016) (Order List).  In the case the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the 1st Amendment's ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prohibits holding a church and its pastors liable in a defamation action for statements made during church disciplinary proceedings seeking to excommunicate plaintiffs. (See prior posting.)

Today the Supreme Court also denied certiorari in Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Lynch, (Docket No. 16-418, cert. denied 11/28/2016) (Order List). In the case the 9th Circuit, rejecting a RFRA defense, held that a church and its founder were properly denied an exemption from federal laws that prohibit the possession and distribution of cannabis. (See prior posting.)

Judgment For Return of Pastor's Salary Is Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy

In In re Andrews, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3786 (SD MI Bankr., Oct 20, 2016), a Mississippi federal bankruptcy judge held that amounts the former pastor of a break-away church owed to the parent body of the denomination are not dischargeable in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.  Robert Andrews was the long-time pastor of Cross Point Church, a church under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Mississippi Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church.  While pastors are paid by local congregations, they are appointed and removed by the parent Conference. Andrews and the Board  of Cross Point Church voted to break away from its parent Conference. The district president of the Conference in response removed Andrews as Cross Point's pastor. The Board of Cross Point nevertheless entered a one-year employment contract with Andrews, including a provision that if the Conference removed Andrews, the pastor would be entitled to his full year's salary.

When the Conference then voted to reject Cross Point's attempted withdrawal, Cross Point's treasurer gave Andrews a check for his remaining yearly salary of $69,505. Andrews and his backers on the Board also locked the church building, took the keys and church records with them and formed a new congregation. In a suit by the remaining members of Cross Point, a state court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Andrews and his backers to return the keys and records. In a subsequent jury trial, the state court awarded Cross Point a judgment of $69,505 against Andrews, finding that Andrews had converted funds belonging to the Church. When Cross Point attempted to garnish Andrew's checking account to recover the funds, Andrews filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.

Cross Point claimed that the debt owed to it is not dischargeable.  The bankruptcy court agreed.  It first held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes it from revisiting the question of Andrews' removal as pastor of Cross Point. It held that under Sec. 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the debt is not dischargeable because it involved "defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity" and "embezzlement."  The court said in part:

Andrews admitted at Trial that as pastor, officer, and Board member, he owed a fiduciary duty to Cross Point Church to safeguard its funds.

Canadian Appeals Court Allows Review of Church's Expulsion of a Member

In Wall v Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, (Alberta Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2016), the Court of Appeals of the Canadian province of Alberta held, in a 2-1 decision, that Canadian civil courts have jurisdiction to review a formal decision by a Jehovah's Witness congregation to disfellowship one of its members. The congregation's Judicial Committee took the action against the member, Randy Wall, on the basis of charges of drunkeness.  A church Appeal Committee upheld the decision over Wall's defense that his action resulted from stress over the church's previous disfellowshipping of his 15 year old daughter and the requirement that he shun aspects of his relationship with her.

The majority held that civil courts have jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization where the decision impacts property or civil rights, or if a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.  Here Wall alleged sufficient procedural irregularities to give jurisdiction to determine if rules of natural justice were breached.  The appeals court majority also held that Wall can submit new evidence to the trial court on whether the impact of shunning by fellow congregants will result in an economic impact on his real estate business.

Judge Wakeling dissenting said in part:

Relying on basic constitutional principles, I have concluded that, presumptively, religious associations – and more importantly, the constituent members – have the constitutional right to select their own members – those with whom they will worship. This decision to exclude a person from the group may be attributable to irreconcilable religious differences or perceived unacceptable forms of behaviour. One should not have to undertake such an intensely personal pursuit with those with whom they do not wish to associate. A religious association must be solely responsible for this class of decisions.

A civil court must decline to review membership decisions of a religious association....

[S]tate intervention in the affairs of religious organizations is not only contrary to the interests of a democratic community, it is also inimical to the welfare of both religious organizations and their congregants.  Whether a religion prospers and attracts new members and has influence in the greater community should be the product of the efforts of adherents of a religion and the values of the religion, not the level of support provided by state apparatus, including the judicial branch of government.

... Courts have neither the mandate nor the expertise to resolve religious doctrinal disputes.

Where one appellate judge dissents on an issue of law, an appeal as of right to Canada's Supreme Court is available. (Background.)  National Post reports on the decision.

Challenge To Church Governance Matters Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Azige v. Holy Trinity Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church, (NC App., Sept. 6, 2016), a North Carolina state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a lawsuit by a faction of church members alleging that the church bylaws had been violated in extending the terms of certain parish council members and in taking other actions.  The court said in part:

Although plaintiffs seek to present this dispute as a simple procedural disagreement over the adoption of bylaws in accord with proper procedure, the substance of the complaint belies this claim. The amended complaint alleges that each plaintiff is “a registered member” of the church; defendants dispute their membership....

Membership in a church is a core ecclesiastical matter. The power to control church membership is ultimately the power to control the church. It is an area where the courts of this State should not become involved.... 

The issues before us would require interpretation of the bylaws which do impose doctrinal requirements. Even if a declaration of plaintiffs’ status as registered members is not specifically the issue before us, in order to determine if plaintiffs even have standing to bring the other issues or to determine if the correct number of members voted for the challenged amendments, the trial court would need to address the contested membership status...

Church Meeting Not Totally Immune From Judicial Examination

In Barrow v. Living Word Church, (SD OH, July 25, 2016), an Ohio federal magistrate judge refused to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit by a former volunteer pastor who was removed from his position and from church membership, saying in part:

The Magistrate Judge agrees that the Free Exercise Clause requires this Court to abstain from judging the legitimacy of any Living Word decision about who is or can be a member or a clergyperson of their church or about whether it is proper to remove a person from either position on the basis of church moral judgment of that person’s behavior. If this were a case about those issues or indeed about interpreting church doctrine in any way, we would be required to abstain.  But the Free Exercise Clause does not shield church people from any secular court consideration of what happens in church meetings just because of where it happened. If a church meeting is used as a place to plan to commit torts involving third parties – which is what is alleged here regarding Living Word interference with Barrow’s book deals – ecclesiastical abstention will not shield the occurrences in the meeting from secular court consideration.

Challenge To Church Pension Plan Not Barred By First Amendment

In Bacon v. Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, (MN App., July 25, 2016), a Minnesota state court of appeals held that neither the First Amendment nor the Freedom of Conscience Clause of the Minnesota Constitution prevents a civil court from adjudicating a challenge to the manner in which the Lutheran Church retirement plans were managed. Participants in the pension plan sued claiming breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and fraud and concealment in the administration and management of the Plans. The court said in part:

Because the plan documents themselves contain the fiduciary duties, a Minnesota court can adjudicate many of the claims without reaching the religious documents.... There does not appear to be a specific ruling of a governing ecclesiastical body at issue in this case....

Court Refuses To Apply Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Jackson v. Mount Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church Deacon Board, (IL App., June 30, 2016), an Illinois state appeals court refused to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in a breach of contract suit by a pastor who employment was terminated by his church.  The pastor contended that the church had agreed that his employment would be governed by the church's bylaws.  The court held:

[P]laintiff alleges that defendants failed to (1) provide a written notice of dissatisfaction; (2) hold a special meeting; (3) provide notice of a vote to the members; and (4) have a proper membership vote. To resolve this dispute, we need only look to the plain text of the church’s bylaws and the relevant facts to determine whether or not defendants breached their oral agreement by failing to comply with its bylaws. Since we need not inquire into any religious doctrines, and can address this issue employing neutral principles of civil law, we have jurisdiction to decide whether defendants breached their oral agreement with plaintiff.

The court went on to agree with the trial court's finding that defendants were completely compliant with the bylaws in dismissing the pastor.

Court Says Suit Over Church Member's Trespassing Ban Should Be Dismissed

In Towns v. Cornerstone Baptist Church, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77575 (ED NY, June 13, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing with prejudice the third amended complaint in a lawsuit by a long-time member of Cornerstone Baptist Church against the church, its pastor, the New York Police Department and others.  Plaintiff claimed that his rights were violated when, because of a dispute about church governance and programming, he was banned by the church from entering its property.  In a letter the church threatened him with arrest for trespassing if he attempted to enter church property. Among other things, the judge concluded that this was a non-justiciable religious controversy and that there was no joint action between the church and police officials, saying in part:

Although plaintiff has the right to worship how he chooses, Cornerstone's decision to ban him from its property is not a violation of his constitutional rights.

The court also rejected plaintiff's conspiracy and retaliation claims.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Leads To Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Complaint Against Cemetery

In Mammon v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., (FL App., May 25, 2016), a Florida appellate court invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a consumer fraud complaint against a cemetery brought by a widow who claimed that the cemetery gave false assurances that her late husband would be buried in accordance with Jewish burial customs and traditions. A month after her husband was buried, the widow discovered that the cemetery allowed non-Jews to be buried in the same section of the cemetery, a practice which she alleged violated Jewish burial traditions. Defendants however cited theological debates among rabbis on whether there are exceptions to the ban. The court held that:

although the widow’s complaint is framed in counts alleging deceptive and fraudulent misrepresentations regarding “Jewish burial customs and traditions,” the disposition of those counts cannot be accomplished without first determining, as a matter of fact, what constitutes “Jewish burial customs and traditions.” *** That preliminary determination would violate the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Dispute Over Selection of New Pastor Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Mouton v. Christian Faith Missionary Baptist Church, (TX App., May 24, 2016), a Texas state appeals court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a dispute between two groups in a church over who should be its new pastor.  The court said in part:

Appellants contend that their claims arise solely from the church’s failure to abide by non-ecclesiastical terms of the church’s bylaws and, therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case under neutral principles of law.  According to appellants, the questions they raise—including whether appellees complied with church bylaws in electing Wilson as pastor and whether appellees properly expelled appellants from church membership—are non-ecclesiastical because they are governed by non-ecclesiastical provisions in the church’s corporate documents. We conclude that the trial court correctly granted the plea to the jurisdiction because appellants’ claims are inextricably intertwined with inherently ecclesiastical issues

Student's Complaint Over Expulsion From Catholic High School Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re St. Thomas High School, (TX App., May 1, 2016), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit against a Catholic high school brought by a 16-year old student who was expelled and by his parents. The expulsion came after the parents sent the school a letter about the handling of a grade dispute.  The letter complained that the teacher involved had not called the parents as they had requested.  It alleged that when the teacher told the student the reason for failing to call-- he was too busy preparing for a romantic night with his wife to celebrate their wedding anniversary-- that this amounted to engaging in a discussion with the student "in a sexually harassing fashion."

The school concluded that the false accusations of sexual harassment against the teacher, made it impossible for other teachers to teach the student without fear of similar charges. The court said in part:

we conclude that St. Thomas’s status as a Catholic high school does not place it outside the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine’s reach. No less than a Catholic church, St. Thomas is a religious institution enjoying First Amendment protection for the free exercise of religion....

This record belies any contention that spiritual standards and religious doctrine play no role in the parties’ dispute. Plaintiffs expressly relied on the Catholic nature of a St. Thomas education to justify their demands....  In addition ... this record also demonstrates impermissible interference with St. Thomas’s management of its internal affairs and encroachment upon its internal governance.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Requires Dismissal of Suit Over Sikh Temple Membership

In Singh v. Sandhar, (TX App., May 10, 2016), a Texas appellate court, on the basis of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, dismissed a suit contesting the membership list that was used by a Sikh temple in determining who was eligible to vote in an election to select members of the temple's 7-member executive committee known as the Prabandhak Committee. The court held:

The temple’s alleged failure to follow its bylaws on a matter of internal governance involves ecclesiastical concerns, and civil courts may not interfere in these matters when disposition of church property is not at stake. 

Minister Can Sue His Church For Disability Benefits

In Bigelow v. Sassafras Grove Baptist Church, (NC App., May 10, 2016), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that neither the ministerial exception doctrine nor the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars a minister from suing his church for contractually promised disability compensation and benefits.  The court said in part:

because plaintiff’s complaint does not challenge the Church’s decision to terminate his employment, but instead seeks to enforce a contractual obligation regarding his compensation and benefits, we hold that the ministerial exception does not apply and is not a basis for dismissal of plaintiff’s claims....

because a court can decide plaintiff’s contract-based claims applying “neutral principles of law,” without entangling the Court in an ecclesiastical dispute or interpretation, we hold that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not require dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.

[Thanks to Will Esser via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

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.

Court May Decide Church Affiliation Dispute

In Ohio District Council, Inc. of the Assemblies of God v. Speelman, (OH App., Feb. 29, 2016), an Ohio state appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent civil courts from adjudicating the validity of action by a local church, known as Christian Assembly, disaffiliating itself from Assemblies of God and instead merging with (and transferring its property to) Fellowship of Praise Church of God.  After Christian Assembly took this action, Assemblies of God adopted a resolution declaring that it still had jurisdiction over the church and purporting to remove its pastor Dennis Speelman.  In holding that the trial court can decide the dispute, the appeals court said in part:

A judicial determination with respect to the significance of Christian Assembly’s affiliation involves no ecclesiastical issues. Here, the parties have presented evidence of constitutions, by-laws, applications for affiliation, as well as ample testimony regarding the structure of the presbytery. The resolution of that matter does not involve the weighing of any controversies concerning religious doctrines, tenets, or practices....

The trial court was not called upon to determine whether Speelman should be pastor or to determine matters of religious concern. Rather, the trial court was called upon to determine which body was authorized to make those determinations and to defer to the determination of the authorized body. 

Former Employee's Fraud Claim Against Diocese Dismissed

In Simon v. Finn, (MO Cir. Ct., Feb. 16, 2016), a Missouri state trial court dismissed a fraud claim against the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph brought by Colleen Simon, formerly the director for social ministries of a local parish.  Simon was dismissed after a newspaper article disclosed that she was in a same-sex marriage.  While Simon claimed that she was falsely assured by the Diocese that her same-sex marriage would not impact her employment, the court said:

For the Court to inquire into the knowing falsity of the Diocesan agents’ ... representations to Plaintiff about her sexual orientation relative to her position in the Diocese would impermissibly entangle the Court in matters and decisions purely canonical, since the Court must necessarily examine the religious views and practices of the Diocese in an attempt to perceive the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s reliance on the Diocese’s representations.

However the court permitted Simon to move ahead with her claim that the Diocese violated Missouri law requiring it to furnish any former employee requesting it a letter describing his or her service. It also permitted Simon to move ahead with her wage and hour claim. ADF issued a press release announcing the court's decision.

UPDATE: Catholic Culture reported Feb. 23 that the Diocese and Simon have entered an undisclosed settlement of the wage and hour and the severance letter claims.

Suit Seeks To Oust Pastor Claiming Fraud As To Credentials

The Record reports today on a suit filed last December by 13 members of the Canaan Korean Community Church in Hackensack, New Jersey against their pastor, Sungnam Choi, and against the church.  The suit seeks to have Choi's contract rescinded and asks the court to bar him from serving as pastor.  Alleging fraud, breach of contract, emotional distress and negligence, the members claim that Choi lied about being a credentialed minister when the church hired him.  Just days before he was hired by the church, Choi surrendered his credentials to the United Methodist Church which had accused him of mishandling grant funds that were supposed to go to the Church.  Choi agreed to pay $37,000 in restitution to the United Methodist Church in exchange for their agreeing not to pursue further legal action against him. When some congregants confronted Choi, he apparently retaliated against them by spreading rumors about them and threatening to have them arrested for trespassing if they tried to attend religious services.  Among those the pastor has barred from worship is Chang Duk Cho, a 30-year member who lent the church $2 million to purchase a new church building. Church leadership however continues to support Choi and are preventing his removal.

Tennessee Appeals Court Invokes Ecclesiastical Abstention In Church Property Dispute

In Church of God In Christ, Inc. v. L.M. Haley Ministries, Inc., (TN App, Jan. 27, 2016), a Tennessee state appeals court in a 2-1 decision held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevents civil courts from adjudicating a dispute between a local congregation and its parent body over ownership of assets-- including real property and a bank account with a balance of over $150,000.  Sometime after Gospel Center Temple's founding pastor died, the Jurisdictional Bishop for the Tennessee area of the Church of God In Christ ("COGIC"), David Hall, invoked a provision in COGIC's Official Manual that vacancies in the pastorate of local churches would be filled by the Jurisdictional Bishop until a new pastor was appointed. When Hall attempted to actively manage the local church and transfer its bank account into his name, some members of the local church threatened him and prevented him from getting access to the church's liquid assets. The local members also formed a new corporation to take title to the church's real estate, and voted to remove themselves from Bishop Hall's jurisdiction. However they remained member of COGIC. This led to a suit by COGIC. The majority rejected jurisdiction, saying that it could not adjudicate the real property dispute as long as the congregation had not withdrawn from the parent body.  And as to the dispute over the church's bank account, the majority said in part:

Bishop Hall's alleged authority regarding Gospel Center Church's personal property, including its bank accounts, derives from Bishop Hall's alleged place as the lawful leader of the church. This Court, however, has no subject matter jurisdiction to declare that Bishop Hall is the lawful leader of Gospel Center Church....

Judge Goldin filed a dissenting opinion.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Does Not Require Dismissal of Suit Over Control of Unification Church's Assets

In Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon, (DC App., Dec. 24, 2015), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the D.C. Superior Court's dismissal of a complicated dispute over control of a D.C. non-profit corporation, UCI, which over the years has managed hundreds of millions of dollars of assets donated to Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. The trial court had invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, concluding that the dispute could not be resolved without the court deciding questions of religious doctrines.  The appellate court disagreed.

UCI was created in 1977.  In 2006, Preston Moon, one of Rev. Moon's sons became president of UCI and one of its five directors. In 2008, Rev. Moon appointed another son, Sean Moon, (Preston's younger brother) as the next leader of the Church's worldwide religious organization.  This "disappointed" Preston who, apparently assumed that he would be appointed to the religious as well as financial leadership of the Church.  In response to Sean's appointment, Preston took a number of steps to divest the Church of its control over UCI and its assets.

Those actions are challenged in this case by three entities connected with the original Unification Church and by two individuals who Preston removed as directors of UCI. The suit claims that Preston improperly took control of UCI's board, ignoring the long-standing practice of electing individuals nominated by Rev. Moon. The suit also alleges diversion of assets and self-dealing.  In reversing the trial court's dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

From plaintiffs’ allegations, it appears that a profound alteration in the corporation ... occurred under Preston Moon. An organization plainly established to promote the preservation of African wildlife and acquiring vast funds on that basis might well be barred from switching its purpose to expenditures on domestic cats and dogs regardless of how technically such a switch might be read into the text of its articles of incorporation. On the present record, we cannot say with confidence that a somewhat analogous transformation cannot be shown to have occurred here. And, in any event, the allegation that corporate funds were used here to benefit one of the directors personally would appear readily subject to court review....

[W]e agree with plaintiffs that the record at this early stage of a difficult and complicated dispute with many ramifications does not support a conclusion that the trial court must engage in inquiry banned by the First Amendment in order to resolve any of plaintiffs’ claims.... Were we to hold that, based on the current record, the First Amendment precludes our civil courts from adjudicating plaintiffs’ claims, then it would approach granting immunity to “every nonprofit corporation with a religious purpose from breach of fiduciary suits . . . and prevent any scrutiny of questionable transactions.”

The court also resolved jurisdictional and standing issues.