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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspended Priest's Age Discrimination Claim Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso, (TX App., May 17, 2021), a Texas appellate court by a vote of 2-1 held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, Texas civil courts lack jurisdiction over an age discrimination and fraud case brought by a Catholic priest against his diocese.  The suit was brought when the diocese reduced payments being made to the priest who was placed on administrative leave after criminal allegations were lodged against him. The majority said in part:

The Diocese contends in this mandamus that a civil court cannot adjudicate whether Bishop Seitz exercised his discretion to reduce Olivas’s payment of decent support in a reasonable manner without inextricably involving itself in the governance of the Catholic Church. We agree and conclude that for both of the asserted claims in this case, that the fact finder would have to judge the stated rationale of Bishop Seitz’s reduction of payments which is grounded under the church’s canon law.

Chief Justice Rodriguez dissented on several grounds. He said in part:

I believe that employment discrimination laws such as the age discrimination provision of Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ... may be constitutionally enforced against religious entity employers, provided that the employee bringing the claim is not one of the defendant’s “ministers.”...

[T]he wrinkle in this case is that while Olivas retains the title of priest, he is by the Church’s own assessment a priest in name only. Seitz admitted that Olivas does not and cannot perform any ministerial duties for the Diocese due to Olivas’ suspension of faculties.

Puzzling Opinion Dismisses Suit Against Archdiocese and Counselor On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In a somewhat puzzling opinion in Mosby v. Kleinguetl (TX App., March 4, 2021), a Texas state appellate court affirmed a trial court's dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention grounds of a husband's suit against the Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and one of its marriage counselors. Claiming, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent counseling, plaintiff alleged that his wife developed a relationship with the counselor and that she eventually sued for divorce.  Despite its affirmance of the trial court's dismissal, the appellate court's opinion seems to conclude that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply:

[T]he allegations at issue here do not clearly intrude upon a religious matter or interfere with the Archdiocese’s ability to manage its internal affairs. Mosby does not allege that the conduct forming the basis of his claims (i.e., the “family and marriage counseling” Kleinguetl provided to Cynthia) was grounded in religious doctrine or otherwise undertaken pursuant to guidance from the Archdiocese. Instead, Mosby alleges that Kleinguetl was having a “personal relationship” with Cynthia and had a history of “inappropriate relationships with others”. These general allegations do not implicate any religious standards or indicate that judicial resolution of this dispute will encroach upon the Archdiocese’s internal affairs or religious doctrine. Therefore, they do not affirmatively demonstrate that the underlying dispute is inherently ecclesiastical as necessary to warrant First Amendment protection.

The court went on:

Construing Mosby’s allegations liberally and taking them as true, we cannot unequivocally hold that Mosby’s pleadings demonstrate an incurable jurisdictional defect....

Then the court concluded: 

Here, Mosby had an opportunity to cure the jurisdictional defects and did not do so. After Kleinguetl and the Archdiocese filed their pleas to the jurisdiction, Mosby twice amended his pleadings but failed to present any additional facts sufficient to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. Mosby is not entitled to an additional opportunity to replead.

Southeast Texas Record reports on the decision.

Synod May Take Over Property of Defunct Church

In Central/Southern Illinois Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Trinity Lutheran Church of Kankakee, (IL App., March 2, 2021), an Illinois state appellate court held that the parent Synod was entitled to take over the property of a local church whose membership had diminished to the point that it was no longer holding worship services or exercising governance functions. Both the constitution of the Synod and of the congregation provided that the Synod should take over the congregation's property in such cases. However one of the remaining church members changed the locks and prevented the Synod from entering. The court said in part:

Pursuant to both constitutions, the Synod Council determined that Trinity Lutheran was no longer viable and, thus, ceased to exist. Such a decision was within the province of the Synod Council and is an ecclesiastical matter involving church doctrine, polity, and practice. Therefore, we will defer to such a finding.

Cert. Petition Filed In Ecclesiastical Abstention Case

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc. v. McRaney, (cert. filed 2/17/2021). In the case the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 9-8, denied en banc review of a panel decision that had refused to invoke the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in a dispute between the Mission Board and its former executive director. (See prior posting.) First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Texas Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Ecclesiastical Abstention Case

The Texas Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in Diocese of Lubbock v. Guerrero, consolidated for argument with In Re Diocese of Lubbock. (Video of oral arguments.) The court's website describes the case:

In this defamation case by a deacon among a list of clergy published on the church website and in a press release, the issues are (1) whether the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine bars the libel claim when a church internally decides to disclose inside information to the public at large and (2) whether Guerrero, the deacon, presented clear and specific evidence establishing a prima facie case of each element of his defamation claim.

Links to the pleadings and briefs in the cases can be found here and here. Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments.

Suit By Fired Parish Office Manager Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Napolitano v. St. Joseph Catholic Church, (FL App., Dec. 18, 2020), a Florida state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a church parish's office manager. At issue was whether a new parish priest could fire the office manager after the prior priest, just before his ouster, had on behalf of the parish entered a 4-year contract with the office manager. In affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

At the heart of the dispute between Napolitano and the Church Defendants is whether Father Brown had the authority under Canon Law to obligate successor administrations of St. Joseph to retain his chosen employees. Simply put, Napolitano has requested that a secular court examine a hierarchical religious organization and determine who has the authority to speak and act on its behalf. Whether based on actual or apparent authority, Napolitano’s request would require a court to impermissibly wade into ecclesiastical polity, in violation of the First Amendment....

Whether Father Brown had the actual or apparent authority to form the employment agreement and bind St. Joseph and the Diocese, even after his removal, is a quintessentially religious controversy—one that would require judicial inquiry into internal church matters—and constitutes a subject matter of which secular courts lack jurisdiction.

Court Refuses To Decide Whether LDS Church Is Christian

 In Ball v. Ball, (AZ App., Dec. 10, 2020), an Arizona appellate court was called upon to interpret a Parenting Plan that parents had agreed upon three years earlier as part of the dissolution of their marriage. The Plan provided:

Each parent may take the minor children to a church or place of worship of his or her choice during the time that the minor children is/are in his or her care.

Both parents agree that the minor children may be instructed in the Christian faith.

A year after the divorce, the father joined the LDS Church and sometimes took the children to meetings there. The mother objected claiming that the father's church is not Christian. The court held that the reference to "Christian" in the second clause does not limit the father's right to take the children to any place of worship, Christian or not.

The court went on to hold that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine would bar it from deciding whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is part of the Christian faith, saying in part:

That very question has long been a matter of theological debate in the United States. A secular court must avoid ruling on such issues to prevent the appearance that government favors one religious view over another.

Court Says Church Trustees Had Authority To Remove Pastor

In Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville, (MD App., Nov. 19, 2020), a Maryland state appellate court held that under the state's Religious Corporation Act, trustees of the church had the authority to remove its pastor. The court said in part:

Churches in Maryland formally organize as religious corporations and thus, the trustees, not the congregation, constitute the corporation....

Appellant ... argues that Shore Haven trustees lacked authority to terminate him because the firing of a church pastor is an ecclesiastical matter reserved to the church, not the trustees....

However, here, there was simply no evidence that the Board’s decision was based on disputes regarding religious doctrine, biblical interpretations or other ecclesiastical matters. As stated by appellee, “appellant’s personal behaviors, organizational shortcomings, inability to manage a breakdown in civility, and over-heated remarks about [a Shore Haven trustee] drove” the decision.

Parents' Suit Against Christian High School Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

 In In re Prince of Peace School, (TX App., Sept. 23, 2020), a Texas state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by parents whose children were expelled from a Lutheran high school after the parents accused school personnel of harassing and bullying their children in connection with disciplinary issues. The court said in part:

Parents’ claims are premised on allegations that Prince of Peace failed to hire qualified staff and appropriately supervise its staff’s interactions with Students, including by failing to report suspected abuse of Students by its staff. Defense of these claims rests on Prince of Peace’s internal and religiously-informed policies and code of conduct. Judicial resolution of the claims would thus require impermissible intrusion in Prince of Peace’s management of these matters.

Cert. Petition Filed In Hierarchical Deference Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Schulz v. Presbytery of  Seattle. In the case, a Washington state appellate court upheld a trial court's deference to decisions of the Administrative Commission set up by the Presbyterian Church USA's representative in connection with disputes regarding a break-away congregation.  (See prior posting.) The petition for review frames the Question Presented as:

In a dispute between a local congregation and its former denomination over ownership of property to which the local congregation holds legal title, does the First Amendment permit courts to apply a rule of absolute deference to assertions of ownership by the denomination?

[Thanks to Paul Harold for the lead.]

11th Circuit: Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Covers Church Leadership Dispute

In Eglise Baptise Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, (11th Cir., Aug. 19, 2020) the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Florida federal district court's dismissal of a suit filed to settle a dispute over church leadership between the church's board of directors and the widow of its deceased pastor. One faction enlisted tribal police to evict worshipers supporting the other faction during a worship service. The court said in part:

The plaintiffs claim that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against Auguste because their claim—rather than involving ecclesiastical disputes—is merely a property dispute. That framing ignores two threshold issues. Before reaching the plaintiffs’ § 248 claim, a court would need to determine whether Auguste was the rightful successor to the church’s leadership and, if she was, whether Auguste had the authority to exclude the plaintiffs from the church’s property. Answering these questions would require us to inquire into church rules, policies, and decision-making and questions of church governance are manifestly ecclesiastical.

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

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

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

Expulsion of Catholic Elementary School Students Covered By Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Doe v. Archdiocese of Galveston- Houston, (TX App., July 7, 2020), a Texas state appellate court affirmed the dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention grounds of a suit against a Catholic elementary school claiming breach of contract, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and conspiracy.  The school claimed that one of plaintiffs' sons, Bob, was seriously misbehaving, including hitting and kicking classmates. Bob's parents in turn suspected that Bob's teacher was bullying and verbally abusing Bob.  The parents hid a recording device on Bob to determine what was going on.  When the school discovered this, they expelled both of plaintiffs' sons. The court said in part:

Jane and Peter ... contend that their children were expelled for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, i.e., not because the children “did not want to attend mass, say their prayers, or genuflect when entering the Church.” Rather, they argue that Bob’s misbehavior and their advocacy on his behalf were secular in nature and therefore, their causes of action do not require a review or interpretation of the teachings of the Catholic church.

The jurisdictional evidence supplied by the school defendants and the Archdiocese tells a somewhat different story—one involving a breach of trust by Jane and Peter and breach of the rules broadly included in the school’s Family Handbook.... [T]he trial court did not err ... because the management of internal affairs, conformity of members to the moral standards required of them, and, in the context of an educational faith-based institution, the expulsion or retention of students are considered ecclesiastical matters to which the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies.

Factional Dispute In Israelite House of David Is Dismissed

In Ferrel v. Israelite House of David, (MI App., April 2, 2020), a Michigan appellate court upheld a trial court's dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention and standing grounds a suit by a former member of the Israelite House of David against the two individuals who claimed to be among a handful of members of a religious organization whose history traced back over 100 years.  Plaintiff had surrendered his membership in a settlement agreement with the organization in 2013. According to the court:

Plaintiff stated that he is “perhaps . . . the only person who is a true believer in the religion of IHOD with the capacity to manage the assets to advance its religious purpose.” He alleged that “he may be the only party standing between continuation of IHOD doctrine and Defendant’s theft and destruction of the religion for personal gain.” On the basis of these allegations, plaintiff sought relief in various forms, including a declaratory judgment that defendants “have improperly and unlawfully diverted IHOD from its stated mission....

In affirming the dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

The trial court did not err by ruling that resolution of plaintiff’s claims would require a decision on matters of church doctrine and polity. Plaintiff argues that his complaint did not seek resolution of any religious issues but concerned a dispute about real estate. This statement is belied by an examination of plaintiff’s amended complaint.... Plaintiff maintained that, with the exception of William Robertson, who was elderly and may have suffered from dementia, “there are no proper members of IHOD.” Plaintiff further alleged that, unlike defendants, he was a true believer and “should be allowed to reestablish his membership as the only person committed to maintain the faith.”... 

The damages that plaintiff alleged are spiritual in nature.... [P]laintiff alleged that he was “deprived of the means and mechanisms necessary for the free exercise of his chosen religion,” “prevented from participating in the central tenet and goal of the religion—the ingathering of the flock of God,” and “deprived of the means to spread the gospel to others.” He also alleged that he has suffered “extreme emotional distress from the loss of the means to practice his religion and the specter of being deprived of salvation.”

Court Refuses To Order Church Membership Meeting

In Ceglar v. Christ's Harbor Church, (TX App., Feb. 27, 2020), a Texas state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit brought by some 25 church members seeking a court order forcing the Church Elders to call a membership meeting.  Two female members of the Church charged its newly-hired senior pastor with inappropriate behavior. Plaintiffs wanted the membership meeting to decide whether the pastor should be disciplined or fired. Under the Church's bylaws, calling a special meeting requires a petition signed by 15% of the Church's members. The court concluded that, given the criteria for Church membership set out in the by-laws, the court cannot determine who is a member without delving into doctrinal matters.

Court Upholds Removal of Mosque's Finance Director

In Islamic Center of Passaic, Inc. v. Salahuddin, (NJ App.,Jan. 13, 2020), a New Jersey appellate court upheld the removal of defendant as finance director and member of the governing Shura Board of a New Jersey Islamic Center. Defendant was the wife of the founder and long-time spiritual leader of the Center. She clashed with the Center's new imam, refusing to allow him or the Shura Board to oversee her financial transactions on behalf of the organization.  The court said in part:

Here, the parties' claims arise from Islamic Center's constitution and bylaws and do not involve religious doctrine or practices. The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law concern whether Islamic Center complied with the procedures set forth in its organizational documents. Judge LaConte applied neutral principles of law to determine if Salahuddin was lawfully removed from office. Resolution of the parties' purely secular claims did not trespass on their religious freedoms.

With respect to Salahuddin's substantive claims, our scope of review of the judge's findings in this nonjury case is limited. We must defer to the judge's factual determinations, so long as they are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record....

[W]e are convinced there is substantial, credible evidence supporting Judge LaConte's findings of fact. We also agree with his legal conclusion Islamic Center complied with its constitution and bylaws when removing Salahuddin as finance director and Shura Board member.

Title VII Suit Against Church Body Can Move Ahead

In Edley-Worford v. Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church, (ED VA, Dec. 30, 2019), a Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII claim by the former Director of Inclusivity and Lay Leadership Excellence in a church organization.  Plaintiff, an African American woman, claimed she was given an unfair workload in relation to those of her Caucasian co-workers and was fired when she complained to the Board of Laity and Personnel Committee. Defendants unsuccessfully raised defenses of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception doctrine.

Court Cannot Decide Church Leadership Dispute

In Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, (SD FL, Jan 3, 2020), a Florida federal district court invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit filed to settle a dispute over church leadership between the church's board of directors and the widow of its deceased pastor. According to the court:

While ... [weekly church] services were in progress, Defendant Auguste and her supporters, escorted by six armed officers from the Seminole Police Department, and without judicial authorization entered church property, "disabled the Church Property's surveillance cameras," "expelled from the Church Property all the worshipers who opposed Auguste," "changed the locks to the doors of the religious structure located on the Church Property," "seized the business records of Eglise Baptiste," and "locked the gates to the Church Property." ... Defendant Auguste and her supporters continue to occupy the church property and control Eglise Baptiste's personal property, including its bank accounts....Further, Defendant Auguste and her supporters have continued to exclude Plaintiffs from the church property.

However, the court concluded:

[A]ny adjudication of the claims asserted in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint would violate the First Amendment because it "would require judicial intrusion into, rules, policies, and decisions which are unmistakably of ecclesiastical cognizance." ... [T]he foundational issue that must be resolved before addressing the merits of the claims is whether Defendant Auguste had the authority to exclude Plaintiffs from church property as Pastor Auguste's rightful successor. Questions of church government are fundamentally ecclesiastical in nature....

Ultimately, Defendant Auguste's decision to exclude Plaintiffs from church property and the ensuing events are so inextricably intertwined with matters of church governance, administration, and membership — regardless of the legal theories presented — that the adjudication of such issues would "excessively entangle[e] the judiciary in [ecclesiastical] questions."...