Court Invokes Ecclesiastical Abstention To Dismiss Church Members' Claims of Financial Mismanagement

In Harrison v. Bishop, (OH App., Dec. 18, 2015), an Ohio appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit brought by three members of the Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church against directors and the senior pastor of the church.  The plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached their duties under the church's constitution by mismanaging the church's finances, wrongfully withholding financial statements and refusing to permit members to examine the church's books and records. The court said in part:

Appellants cite select provisions in the Constitution that they allege give rise to appellees’ duties....  While it is true that the Constitution contains apparently secular provisions, we cannot view those provisions in isolation, thereby ignoring the ecclesiastical content that is found throughout the document. In view of the patently religious nature of the church’s Constitution, we find that reliance upon provisions within the Constitution for determination of the rights and responsibilities of the parties in this case, under auspices of “neutral principles of law,” would necessarily entangle the trial court in ecclesiastical issues over which the court has no subject matter jurisdiction under the First and Fourteenth Amendments....

Further, we find that appellants, in filing this action, are essentially seeking to utilize the power of the civil courts to institute the termination and replacement of the church’s leadership.

Church Official's Defamation Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Dermody v. Presbyterian Church (USA), (KY Cir. Ct., Sept. 21, 2015), a Kentucky trial court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation suit by PCUSA's former Deputy Executive Director of Mission against PCUSA.  Plaintiff Roger Dermody based his claim on PCUSA's informing people outside the governing body of the church that Dermody had violated PCUSA's ethics policies, apparently by allowing pastors under his supervision to set up a new non-profit organization to support the creation of new worship communities. The court concluded that if it were to adjudicate the defamation claim and the defense of truthfulness, it would have to determine whether Dermody had in fact committed ethics violations, which would require it to interpret church doctrine and policies. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Says Lutheran Synod Dispute Panel's Decision Was Only Advisory

In Hillenbrand v. Christ Lutheran Church of Birch Run, (MI App., Sept. 15, 2015), a Lutheran pastor who was fired by his congregation filed suit after the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod (LCMS) Dispute Resolution Panel concluded that the decision to terminate the pastor should be revised, and he should be paid his salary and benefits until he takes another position. The court held that LCMS is congregational and not hierarchical, and that the Dispute Resolution Panel's decision was merely advisory, even if the congregation wrongfully attempted to withdraw from the Synod in order to avoid the dispute resolution process.  The court added:

plaintiff is asking this Court to do exactly what the United States Supreme Court [in Hosanna-Tabor] said courts should not, i.e., impose an unwanted minister on a church.

Factional Disputes In Houses of Worship Are Increasingly Ending Up In Court

An article posted Monday by Reveal reports that increasingly factional disputes over control of mosques in the United States are ending up in civil courts.  The lengthy article discusses several such cases, saying in part:

Historically, the Muslim American community has kept its disputes private, sometimes turning to faith-based mediation. But as the number of mosques increases and Muslims integrate with mainstream America, conflicts involving clerics, congregations and mosques are seeping into secular courts from California to Texas and Florida.

Intergenerational friction offers significant fodder for legal actions. U.S. mosques are evolving from traditional institutions run by the eldest community members to democratized nonprofits with bylaws and elections, even women in positions of power. Oral traditions have become written.

However it is not just Muslims that are turning to civil courts.  Last Sunday in San Jose, California, over 5,000  members of a Sikh gurdwara cast ballots in a court-ordered election of officers.  The San Jose Mercury News reports that all 21 incumbents were re-elected, ending extensive litigation between a reformist faction and existing leaders who raised millions of dollars in the 1980's to build the gurdwara. Insurgents say that merely having an election was a victory.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Require Dismissal of Breach of Contract Claim

In Shannon v. Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church U.S., (TX App., July 21,2015), a Texas state appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is not applicable to a claim by former Church Elementary Ministries Director Jessica Shannon that the Church breached a confidential separation agreement she had signed. The agreement involved payment to her of $25,000 to settle her claim that she had been dismissed for making sexual harassment allegations against a Church elder. As part of the agreement, the Church and Shannon each agreed not to "disparage" the other. After Shannon was hired by the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary as a development officer, it called the Church for references and was told by officials that the Church would not rehire Shannon and that she would not be able to raise funds anywhere in Houston. This led the Seminary to fire Shannon on the grounds that she had misrepresented the circumstances surrounding her departure from the Church.

Shannon sued the Church, claiming among other things that it violated the non-disparagement provision. The court held in part:

We may interpret a contract in a civil law controversy in purely secular terms when doing so does not require us to rely on religious precepts or resolve a religious controversy.... Making the determination of whether the Church disparaged Shannon merely involves interpreting the contract as a matter of law and applying the facts as found by the fact finder. Moreover, under these circumstances, we are not required to intervene in the hiring, firing, discipline, or administration of the Church’s clergy, address the Church’s standards of morality, or address any other matters traditionally held to involve religious doctrine.... We conclude that this lawsuit, revolving around the Church’s purported disparagement of Shannon in violation of the Agreement, is a civil law controversy in which Church officials happen to be involved.... Accordingly, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply.

The court also concluded that the trial court had erred in invoking several other grounds for dismissing Shannon's claims. It affirmed only the trial court's dismissal of Shannon's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

UPDATE: On Sept. 1, 2015, the court denied a motion for rehearing and filed a Substitute Opinion: 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9312.

Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Preliminary Injunction In Church Election Case

Ex parte Cornell L. Tatum, Sr.,  (AL Sup. Ct., July 10, 2015), is a mandamus action-- essentially an interlocutory appeal-- in a suit in which members of a Baptist Church sued seeking an order to require deacons of the church to abide by a vote of church members ousting them from their positions. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring the deacons from "undertaking any act as a member of [the board] of [the church] including any participation in Deacon
meetings or performing any duties or responsibilities of a deacon while this order is in effect." The deacons petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court in a summary order denied the petition.

While there was no opinion for the court, Justice Parker wrote an opinion concurring specially, saying in part:

I write specially to emphasize that a circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to apply judicial notions of due process to church proceedings when the highest adjudicatory body of a church decides a purely ecclesiastical matter.  Additionally, I write to note that a circuit court may recognize a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of a church concerning a purely ecclesiastical matter and, based on that decision, enjoin persons from taking unauthorized actions on behalf of the church....

Admittedly, however, it is unclear whether the April 20, 2014, vote constituted a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of the church. In a Baptist church, the majority of the congregation is the highest adjudicatory body, unless the church bylaws provide otherwise.... This lack of clarity, however, does not require that this Court grant the petitioners' petition..... The petitioners have not demonstrated that the April 20, 2014, meeting was not a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of the church. Accordingly, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Chief Justice Moore filed a dissenting opinion, arguing in part that "any decision by the circuit court regarding the ability of the petitioners to serve as deacons in the church necessarily requires the court to resolve a number of antecedent issues that are inextricably intertwined with church governance." He added:

A court's involvement in a religious matter is not sanitized merely because the court purports to ratify, rather than annul, a church's decision. What violates church autonomy is not the substance of the court's ultimate determination, but the judiciary's very participation in the intra-church conflict.

Justice Murdock filed a brief dissent based on failure to join necessary parties. 

Negligent Supervision Claim Against Diocese By Sex-Abuse Victim Can Proceed

In John Doe 200 v. Diocese of Raleigh, (NC App., July 7, 2015), a North Carolina appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not require dismissal of a sex-abuse victim's negligent supervision claims against the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh. The court held:

Were we to adopt the Diocese Defendants’ argument ..., then the First Amendment would, as a practical matter, serve as a complete shield to tort liability for religious organizations in the sexual abuse context except in those cases in which the plaintiff specifically alleged prior sexual assaults by the cleric at issue. We do not believe the First Amendment requires such a result.... Neutral principles of law allow a civil court to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claim that the Diocese Defendants knew or should have known of the danger posed by Sepulveda [a priest] to Plaintiff because of his sexual attraction to minors.

The court however reached a different conclusion on plaintiff's claim that the Diocese should have required the offending priest to undergo STD testing and should have provided the results to plaintiff:

This claim seeks to impose liability based on the Diocese Defendants’ alleged failure to exercise their authority over a priest stemming from an oath of obedience taken by him pursuant to the church’s canon law. As such, this claim directly “challenges church actions involving religious doctrine and practice” and cannot be adjudicated without entangling a secular court in ecclesiastical matters. 

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Prevents Suit Over Catholic Health Care Directive

In Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, (WD MI, June 30, 2015), plaintiff sued for negligence claiming that policies promulgated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and adopted by Catholic Health Ministries, the sponsor of a health care system, resulted in her receiving improper information and treatment for a condition that led to a miscarriage.  She was not informed of the serious risk to her health if she continued her pregnancy after a membrane rupture and was not informed of the option of terminating her pregnancy.  A Michigan federal district court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Michigan's long-arm statute over USCCB. It held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes it from adjudicating the claims against the other defendants:

Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Michigan law recognizes a duty to a patient by a sponsor of a hospital network....  Even if Plaintiff could articulate a cognizable legal duty, the Court could not adjudicate the elements of breach and proximate cause because it necessarily implicates the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine... which prevents the Court from interpreting religious doctrinal texts. Plaintiff has not presented a way for this Court or a jury to analyze CHM’s duty, breach, or causation without reference to the text of the [Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services], which are an expression of Catholic doctrine.

Settling Factional Dispute Would Involve Civil Court In Religious Matters

In Samuel v. Lakew, (DC Ct. App., June 11, 2015), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal of a lawsuit between two factions of the Kedus Gabriel Parish (located in D.C.) of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church in the Diaspora.  The parent church's Holy Synod had ruled that the president of the local church and the head of the Parish Administrative Council should surrender all keys and property of the Parish to the Archbishop of the Washington Metropolitan area.  They refused to do so, and the Archbishop sued seeking an injunction requiring them to comply with the Holy Synod's ruling.  The DC court held that the true dispute was over whether a clause in Kedus Gabriel's bylaws giving the  Holy Synod responsibility for the congregation's "spiritual and religious matters" gives the Holy Synod authority to remove Kedus Gabriel’s elected officers here.  Deciding whether the Holy Synod's decision here involved spiritual or religious matters would involve the court in an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine and practice in violation of the First Amendment. The court concluded:

Informed by both parties’ summary judgment papers that the dispute here at bottom is about which clergy have the right to control Kedus Gabriel, Judge Kravitz properly denied relief, on the ground that “the First Amendment does not permit a civil court to determine the religious leader of a religious institution[.]”

Court's Determination of Church's Voting Membership Upheld

In Fairfield Pentecostal Church v. Johnson, (LA App., June 3, 2015), a Louisiana state appeals court upheld a trial court's decision determining a church's voting membership for purposes of a special vote on whether to dismiss the pastor, saying in part:

The trial court determined at the hearing that none of the members on the original roll had been disfellowshipped; and it allowed another list of members gathered in November 2013 by Reverend Franks, who had kept no roll since his installment in 2010, to be counted toward the membership roll. In order to prevent the solicitation of new members for purposes of litigation, the trial court limited the membership to these two lists. We can think of no more equitable solution. 

Court Defers To Ecclesiastical Decision In Church Control Lawsuit

Kim v. The True Church Members of the Holy Hill Community Church, (Cal. App., May 21, 2015), involves a dispute between two factions of a Los Angeles congregation that was part of a presbytery of the Korean American Presbytery Church.  The congregation owns valuable property on Los Angeles' Sunset Boulevard.  The dispute involved attempts by one faction to excommunicate members of the other and an attempt to withdraw the congregation from the parent church body.  The California state appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision deferring to the determination by the parent body of the congregation.

Court Orders Another Election For Small Church's Board

In Rock Church, Inc. v. Venigalla, (NY York Co. Sup. Ct., May 14, 2015), a New York state trial court rejected a challenge to its jurisdiction over a disputed election in a small church whose some 30 members were split over whether to fire its pastor after his decision to reduce the number of Sunday services from two to one. The court had previously ordered that a meeting be held to elect a full Board.  This suit challenges the validity of that election in which the faction opposing the pastor was voted into office after a third vote at which the pastor's supporters claim numerous non-members voted. The court said in part:

If this matter required the a weighing of an individual's fitness for membership in the Church, and a decision as to whether or not that individual met the criteria for membership, including investigation into the depth of his or her religious convictions, it would be clear that the matter would be beyond this court's subject matter jurisdiction. But, the matter actually turns on a matter of contract. In the present matter, through its by-laws, the Church's contract as to how the Church will conduct its business, the Church has already decided how members are to be determined. Under the Church's by-laws, it is up to the pastor, and only the pastor, to determine who is to be a member of the Church....

Since Pastor Impaglia ... attests that the third vote taken on October 5, 2014, was taken largely among nonmembers, who cannot vote for trustees, it follows that the final vote taken on October 5, 2014, which put respondents in power, was illegal under the Church's By-Laws, and is void. As said, the matter is one of pure contract interpretation, and therefore involves only the application by this court of a "neutral principle of law."

The court held that another vote held the same day purporting to elect the pastor's supporters was also void, and ordered the church to hold another special meeting.

Mississippi Supreme Court: Courts May Not Rule On Dispute Over Removal of Pastor

In Greater Fairview Missionary Baptist Church v. Hollins, (MS Sup. Ct., March 26, 2015), the Mississippi Supreme Court, relying largely on the U.S. Supreme Court's Hosanna-Tabor decision, held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose procedures for a congregation to use in a vote to remove its pastor.  The pastor had initially been placed on administrative leave after being accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor.  When church members decided to vote on whether to completely remove him, the pastor sued.  In reversing the trial court, the Supreme Court said in part:

In sum, we find that the chancery judge erred when he treated this ecclesiastical controversy as a secular one—a pastor who is unhappy about being terminated by a church simply does not present a secular controversy.

Defamation Suit Between Ukrainian Orthodox Church Factions Dismissed

In Nykoriak v. Bilinski, (MI App., March 17, 2015), a Michigan appeals court dismissed a suit that apparently grew out of the rivalry in a Michigan parish between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church controlled by Moscow, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate that was created to be independent of Moscow. [See prior posting for background]. The suit was brought by Bishop Paisiy and a deacon who apparently decided to embrace the Moscow Patriarchate.  They sued the Kyiv Patriarchate in the United States and Canada and its leaders.  Bishop Paisiy asserted that the defendants

released a press release on March 23, 2013, which falsely alleged that plaintiff Bishop Paisiy resigned as bishop; he transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate; he could no longer serve as bishop; ... and that ... St. Andrew Church [in  Hamtramck, Michigan] was placed under the direction of the [Kyiv] Vicariate. Plaintiffs also alleged that on March 24, 2013, ... defendants arrived at St. Andrew and behaved in an unruly manner, used profanity, interrupted services, took pictures of plaintiffs, called them, "The Devil, Criminal Thief, and other inappropriate, immoral and unlawful terms," and then distributed the [Kyiv] Vicariate's press release to the congregation.

The court held first that defendants' alleged conduct did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to the defamation claim, the heckling in which plaintiffs were called devil and criminal could not reasonably be understood a stating actual facts.  The remaining defamation claims, the court held, are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine:

In order to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims, a court would have to engage in an impermissible excursion into their religious doctrine pertaining to ordination, the religious authority needed for succession of their church leaders, and the organization and form of their church government.

Disability Discrimination Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Beth Yeshua Hamashiach v. Adan, (TX App., March 3, 2015), a Texas state appeals court, invoking the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief against a Messianic synagogue for discrimination on the basis of disability.  Plaintiff, Malaika Adan, was a synagogue member who is confined to a wheelchair.  She complained that a restroom in the Baptist Church building where the synagogue rented space was not ADA compliant. She sent a letter to the pastor of the Baptist Church, quoting scripture at length and threatening to sue.  The rabbi of the Messianic Congregation, along with some of its leaders, unhappy about plaintiff's threat to sue, wrote plaintiff, citing Biblical verses, and imposed a 6 week ban from the premises on her.  She sued alleging that she was denied admittance to the church building because of her disability. The court said:

The pleadings and relevant jurisdictional evidence demonstrate that this was a religious dispute between a congregant and one of its members. Although Adan initially complained to Pastor Jeter about the restroom, she unilaterally injected religious issues into a secular controversy.

Court Refuses To Defer To Ecclesiastical Determination In Church Embezzlement Prosecution

Chicago Tribune reports that a Wisconsin state trial court has refused to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to a criminal prosecution of a Greek Orthodox priest charged with embezzling trust funds from the church where he served for many years.  James Dokos was trustee of a $1.1 million trust benefiting Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church in Milwaukee. The indictment (full text) alleges that Dokos wrote checks for $110,000 outside the terms of the trust, and mostly for his personal benefit. Before going to civil authorities, leaders of Annunciation complained to its parent body, the Metropolis of Chicago, which investigated and concluded that Dokos had done nothing wrong.

Dokos claimed that the case involves a dispute between a priest and a parish council over the use of church funds, and should be decided by the Greek Orthodox Church's internal dispute resolution process. The court disagreed, holding:

Determining whether or not the defendant embezzled money does not require this court to appoint religious ministers, decide tenets of faith (or) interpret church doctrine.

Court Dismisses Defamation Claims Against Church And Pastors By Excommunicated Plaintiffs

In Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession of Worthington, (MN App., Jan. 12, 2015), a Minnesota state appellate court invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a defamation suit brought against a church and its pastors by a couple who had been excommunicated for their criticism of the church's pastors.  Plaintiffs, an elderly couple, claim that statements made during a meeting of church members and before a synod review panel as part of the excommunication process injured their character and reputation in their small community. The court held, however, that:

any judicial inquiry into the truth of statements made during a church disciplinary proceeding would create an excessive entanglement with the church that would violate the First Amendment...

Challenge To Catholic School's Entrance Requirements Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Vida, (TX App., Jan. 7, 2015), a Texas state appeals court held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, a trial court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a suit by parents of a Catholic school kindergartner against the school superintendent.  The suit alleging negligence, tortious interference with contract and conspiracy was filed after the school refused to admit the student to first grade because she failed to meet the 6-year old age requirement.  The court said:

Just as the courts cannot question the admission requirements for Catholic churches, they also do not have jurisdiction to consider a claim arising from the admission requirements for Catholic schools which “are subject to the authority of the Church” under Canon Law.

Kentucky Supreme Court Defines Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In St. Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v. Edwards, (KY Sup. Ct., Dec. 18, 2014), the Kentucky Supreme Court redefined the operation of the "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine" under Kentucky law. The Court held that the doctrine is not a bar to jurisdiction, but instead operates as an affirmative defense designed to allow both churches and other religious organizations independence from secular control.  At issue in the case was a challenge by a group of St. Joseph Home alumni to the action at an annual meeting of members taken after the existing Board had been unable to muster a high enough vote to remove one of its own members accused of harassing employees.  By a resolution passed overwhelmingly, the members replaced the existing Board members and amended the bylaws to add protections against Board-member misconduct. The Court concluded that a challenge to this action involves an issue of ecclesiastical governance that is covered by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, and so remanded the case to the trial court for dismissal.

The practical effect of the court's procedural holding is that in the future defendants will be able to file an interlocutory appeal when a trial court refuses to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, instead of proceeding as in this case by seeking a writ of prohibition from the Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, it appears that while the Supreme Court's decision on issuing a writ of prohibition was pending, the trial court went on with the case.  WDRB reports that on Dec. 10, the trial court dismissed the challenge to the action at the annual meeting because the ousted trustees had an opportunity to attend a second meeting at which the bylaw amendments were to be reconsidered, and they chose not to attend. This report also sheds more light on the nature of the leadership contest:

The lawsuit pitted a largely aging group of trustees – among them former residents of the Frankfort Avenue orphanage -- against a younger faction with corporate ties.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Will Not Decide Validity of Vote In Challenge By Excommunicated Members of Buddhist Temple

In Matter of Ming Tung v China Buddhist Association, (NY App., Nov. 13, 2013), a New York state intermediate appeals court, in a 4-1 decision, refused to order a Buddhist Temple to hold a membership meeting with a receiver determining those eligible to vote. The dissent described the facts as follows:

Respondent Mew Fung Chen (Master Chen) excommunicated not only the three petitioners but a total of 517 members, representing all the congregants of the Manhattan chapter of the CBA and a majority of the CBA's members, 10 days before the special meeting called by the two unauthorized trustees appointed by Master Chen. Thus, he deprived the Manhattan congregants of their right to vote on the agenda of the meeting which, in effect, resulted in the transfer of control of all properties and assets of the CBA to Master Chen. Only 110 members of the Queens faction of the CBA, all supporters of Master Chen, were given notice of the special meeting. 

The majority held, however:

At first blush the petition appears to present a straightforward issue of corporate governance, specifically whether various corporate actions, including a meeting held in May 2011, were improperly taken, thereby depriving petitioners of their right to participate in those events.... We hold, however, that because petitioners are not members of the CBA based upon Master Chen's excommunication of them, they cannot challenge these corporate actions.... Petitioners contend that their excommunication was completely motivated by Master Chen's desire to squelch the simmering underlying dispute over ownership of real property in Manhattan and Queens where the CBA owns temples. Even where the parties' dispute concerns control of church property, the court will not intervene in matters that are predominantly religious disagreements...

Reuters reports on the decision.