Suit Against Church for Negligent Retention of Pastor Can Move Ahead

 In Exum v. St. Andrews-Covenant Presbyterian Church, Inc., (NC App, Nov. 19, 2024), a North Carolina state appellate court held that claims for negligent retention, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty brought against a church do not need to be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine because they can be decided using neutral principles of law. Plaintiff and his wife attended St. Andrews-Covenant Church.  The church's pastor, Derek Macleod, entered a romantic relationship with plaintiff's wife. After plaintiff and his wife were divorced, Plaintiff sued the church and its parent bodies. The court said in part:

Exum alleges that St. Andrews-Covenant was negligent in allowing Macleod’s tortious conduct to occur because St. Andrews-Covenant knew or should have known that Macleod had engaged in similar misconduct in his capacity as a church leader in prior roles. ...

 “[T]here is no necessity for th[is] [C]ourt to interpret or weigh church doctrine in its adjudication of” Exum’s claims premised on alleged negligence in placing and retaining Macleod at St. Andrews-Covenant....  “It follows that the First Amendment is not implicated and does not bar” Exum’s claims against St. Andrews-Covenant....  As the Court in Smith [v. Privette] explained, a contrary holding “would go beyond First Amendment protection and cloak such [religious] bodies with an exclusive immunity greater than that required for the preservation of the principles constitutionally safeguarded.”....

Federal Court Refuses to Enjoin Distribution of Notice from Rabbinical Court

In Esses v. Rosen, (ED NY, Oct. 15, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction barring defendants from disseminating in plaintiff's neighborhood a rabbinical court's notice (a sieruv) that plaintiff has failed to respond to a summons from the rabbinical court. Plaintiff also asked that the seiruv be taken down or removed from places where it had been posted. Plaintiff alleged claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The court said in part:

While plaintiff does not dispute that she brought the claims in this case before a secular court rather than a religious one, she suggests that the seiruv is defamatory because it indicates that her doing so was “improper[].”  That statement is nowhere contained in the seiruv itself.  But even if the seiruv is read to convey that implication through its reference to plaintiff’s civil filing, the First Amendment would prevent this Court from second-guessing a religious court’s view of impropriety. ... 

Plaintiff next claims that the instructional document distributed with the seiruv is defamatory because it falsely conveys “that the rabbis of the beth din were encouraging social ostracism and shaming in this case.” ... In any event, the Establishment Clause would preclude this Court from finding defamation on that ground.  To decide whether the instructional document was true or false in its asserted characterization of plaintiff’s seiruv, the Court would be “called upon to inquire into the rules and customs governing rabbinical courts as they are utilized in the Orthodox Jewish religion,”

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Suit Over Deceptively Promoted School Religious Program Moves Ahead

In Roe v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, (MD LA, Oct. 8, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss many claims brought by high school seniors and their parents asserting violations of the Establishment Clause, infringement of parental rights, sex discrimination, violation of the Louisiana Parents Bill of Rights, negligence, infliction of emotional distress and fraud. According to the court:

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit centers around the overarching allegation that, “[f]or several years going back to at least 2016, [defendants] ... were engaged in a conspiracy to expose public school children to overtly sectarian and religious experiences directly through the East Baton Rouge School System..., often without the knowledge or permission of the students’ parents or guardians.” [They] ...developed a program called ‘Day of Hope’, whereby public school students of the East Baton Rouge School System would be sent to a religious service during school time, chaperoned by EBRSB employees.” ... [Defendants] advertised the 2022 event to parents and students as a ‘College and Career Fair’, providing ‘a college and career fair, breakout sessions, live music, a keynote speaker, free food, and more.’ None of the promotional materials or advertisements for the event provided any obvious religious connection.” Plaintiffs claim that, “[i]n actuality, ‘Day of Hope’ speakers were almost exclusively pastors or other religious speakers who describe their participation in the public school event as ‘worship[]’ and ‘minister[ing] to over 1000 kids’, including hashtags on social media posts describing the event like ‘#GodGetsTheGlory’.” ...

The allegations taken as true suggest coercion as understood by Supreme Court precedent, and the prohibition against this practice was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation....

The Title IX claim focuses primarily on two aspects of the Day of Hope program: 1) transgender and gender non-conforming students were forced into “either male or female segregated gender groups based on their outward appearance and without their consent”; and 2) while the male students engaged in “frivolous recreational activities,” the female students were “exposed to a ‘girls gender talk’ including traumatizing lectures by pastors and other religious figures about virginity, rape, abuse, and suicide, even being told to ‘forgive’ their rapists and abusers.”...

Nebraska Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Priest's Suit Against Archdiocese

 In Syring v. Archdiocese of Omaha, (NE Sup. Ct., July 26, 2024), the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of defamation, infliction of mental distress, interference with prospective employment and breach of fiduciary duty claims by a Catholic priest against his Archdiocese.  The priest was listed on an Archdiocese website that named those against whom there had been allegations of misconduct or abuse of a minor. He was forced to resign his ministry position and the Archdiocese refused to approve his serving as a hospital chaplain. The court held that the Archdiocese's action did not meet the standard for outrageous conduct needed to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It went on the dismiss various of plaintiff's claims on the basis of the ministerial exception doctrine.  The court said in part:

Syring’s claims asserted that the Archdiocese “falsely impute[d] unfitness to preform [sic] duties of employment, and prejudice[d] [Syring] in his profession or trade.” The other claims were premised upon Syring’s assertion that the Archdiocese owed him fiduciary duties. For example, the complaint identified a purported breach of a fiduciary duty in the Archdiocese’s “requiring [Syring’s] resignation, and omitting to advise him of his right to counsel, both civil and canonical.”

We cannot uphold Syring’s claims without interfering with the internal governance of the church, or depriving the church of control, over the selection of its ministers. The claims— based on the conversation between officials of a Catholic archdiocese and a hospital operated by a Catholic religious order regarding permission for Syring to serve as a chaplain, Syring’s fitness to perform the duties of his employment, and the requiring of Syring’s resignation from that employment— lie at the heart of the ministerial exception articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court. The district court did not err in dismissing these claims.

Fraud and Negligence Claims Move Ahead Against Church Over Mistreatment of Members

In Ramirez v. World Mission Society, Church of God, (D NJ, April 1, 2024), plaintiff brought suit in a New Jersey federal district court against various defendants, including a church and its Pastor, for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. Plaintiff claims that she was pressured into joining defendant Church, in part through concealment of the identity of the Church's leader. She was further coerced into donating 10% of her income to the church based on misrepresentations that the donations would be used for charitable purposes rather than salaries. The Church indoctrinated its members so that they would work long hours at low pay. It alienated plaintiff from her family and friends, and told members they could not have children which led plaintiff to get an abortion and subsequently attempt suicide. The court dismissed many of the claims because elements were not adequately pleaded. Only a claim against the Church and its Pastor for intentional fraud based on false representations and a claim for negligence against the Church survived defendants' motion to dismiss.

Ministerial Exception Applies to Slander, But Not Contract Claims

In Gackenheimer v. Southern New England Conference of the United Church of Christ, Inc., (CT Super., June 29, 2023), a minister who was fired from his position as executive director of a church's conference center sued the church and its senior leaders for defamation, infliction of emotional distress and breaches of express and implied contract.  Plaintiff alleged that the leaders misrepresented the reasons for his firing in communications to community religious leaders and church volunteers. A Connecticut trial court applied the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss defamation related claims, but permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his contract claims. The court said in part:

The ministerial exception ... does not categorically preclude all claims brought against a religious institution. ..."...[E]ven if it is established that the plaintiff's primary duties render him a ministerial employee ... Connecticut courts must consider whether adjudicating the particular claims and defenses in the case would require the court to intrude into a religious institution's exclusive right to decide matters pertaining to doctrine or its internal governance or organization."... Therefore, the court will separately examine each of the plaintiff's causes of action in order to determine whether they are barred by the ministerial exception.

In counts one and two, the plaintiff alleges slander and slander per se causes of action based on two statements allegedly made by SNE's senior leaders to members of the community.... Therefore, to adjudicate the plaintiff's slander claims, the court would necessarily have to delve into the veracity of comments made by SNE's leaders regarding its decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment.... Such an examination into the decision-making process of church leadership is exactly what the ministerial exception prohibits. Accordingly, the court strikes counts one and two.

Counts three and four state claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress... based on SNE's decision to terminate his employment and the immediate aftermath of the process... . "[T]hese claims arise directly from, and in furtherance of, the defendants' decision to terminate the employment of the plaintiff...." On that basis, the court grants the motion to strike counts three and four....

Unlike the claims brought by the plaintiff in counts one through four, counts five through eight do not involve the plaintiff's termination process and the reasons behind it. Rather, in these counts, the plaintiff asks the court to determine if SNE breached its employment contract with him or, alternatively, ... the plaintiff is entitled to relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Importantly, the plaintiff alleges that he earned this claimed compensation years before he was fired. Therefore, when deciding this dispute, the court will not be excessively entangled in SNE's decision about whether to retain the plaintiff as its minister.... The court ... therefore denies the motion to strike counts five, six, seven and eight.

Former Cantor's Claims Against Synagogue Are Dismissed

In Sklar v. Temple Israel, Westport Inc., (CT Super., April 21, 2023), a Connecticut state trial court dismissed breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims asserted by the former Cantor of defendant synagogue, Temple Israel.  Plaintiff contended that the Temple failed to provide him the procedural protections to which he was entitled under his contract before it fired him for three incidents of unsatisfactory performance of duties. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine precludes plaintiff's contract claims, saying in part:

[T]he manner in which the defendant Temple Israel discharged or disciplined the plaintiff would constitute government interference with an internal decision that affects the faith and mission of the synagogue, thereby violating the Free Exercise Clause. The Court also finds that it would also violate the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in ecclesiastical decisions because it concerns internal management decisions of the synagogue as to its employment relationship with its clergy.

The court concluded that plaintiff's other allegations, while serious, are legally insufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff had complained of lapses in COVID protocols and lack of enhanced security which exacerbated his post-traumatic stress disorder.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Bars Mississippi Courts From Adjudicating Claims Of Fired Diocese Finance Officer

In Catholic Diocese of Jackson, Mississippi v. DeLange, (MS Sup. Ct., June 16, 2022), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevents Mississippi courts from adjudicating wrongful termination, defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims brought by the former Finance officer of the diocese.  Plaintiff was given several reasons for his termination by the bishop. Under the Code of Canon Law, the Finance officer can be removed only for "grave cause." Plaintiff claimed that the reasons given for his termination were false. The court said in part:

 ... de Lange argues that his request merely asks a court to determine the truthfulness of the reasons given by the Diocese for his termination. De Lange insists that a civil court will not be required to interpret the Code of Canon Law. We disagree.

Even if the Diocese’s reasons were found to be based on falsehoods, and we are making no such determination, a reason existed for de Lange’s termination. That is, there was some reason for his termination, whether it is one of the reasons cited by the Diocese or, perhaps, it is simply the apparent incompatibility that existed between de Lange and Bishop Kopacz. Whatever that reason may be and regardless of the strength of that reason, the request that de Lange now makes ... would ultimately require judicial interpretation of what constitutes “grave cause” under the Code of Canon Law....  Such an interpretation is off limits for a civil court to make.

School Lacks Standing To Sue For Students' and Parents' Distress From Anti-Abortion Pickets

In Nicdao v. Two Rivers Public Charter School, (DC Ct. App., June 9, 2022), the District of Columbia's local Court of Appeals held that a school's suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress should be dismissed for lack of standing.  At issue was intrusive protests by three individuals who were opposing the construction of a Planned Parenthood clinic next door to the school.  The court held that the school lacked third-party standing to sue on behalf of parents and students who were injured. Financial hurdles making it difficult for the injured parties to sue are insufficient here justify third-party standing. The court also dismissed plaintiff's private nuisance and conspiracy claims. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Fraud and Emotional Distress Claims Against Archdiocese Are Dismissed

In Dux v. Bugarin, (MI App., Dec. 21, 2021), a Michigan state appellate court dismissed an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim and a fraud claim growing out of the Archdiocese of Detroit's removal of an accused Catholic priest supported by plaintiffs. The court describes plaintiffs' claims:

In their IIED count, plaintiffs claimed defendants’ statement that the allegations of sexual abuse were credible was an “extreme and outrageous act.” In their fraud count, plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese asked its parishioners, including plaintiffs, to donate money to the Catholic Services Appeal (CSA). Plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese represented the donations would be used for church ministry and would not be used to settle claims “of any nature” against the Archdiocese.

Dismissing the IIED claim under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court said in part:

The trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ IIED claim because resolution of that claim would require the trial court to delve into matters of ecclesiastical policy concerning how the Archdiocese investigates and evaluates claims of sexual abuse made against its clergy.... [A]ny inquiry into the means and methods by which the Archdiocese evaluates such claims would require the trial court to inquire into ecclesiastical matters forbidden under the First Amendment.

Dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claims, the court said that one of the fraud claims-- that they were defrauded by the statement that donations would be used for the church "ministry"-- would require courts to impermissibly inquire into internal church matters. It would need to decide whether "ministry" includes investigation into sex abuse claims and providing treatment for victims. Turning to a second fraud claim, the court said in part:

Turning then to whether plaintiffs otherwise stated a claim for fraud on the basis of the statement that CSA donations would not be used to settle claims against the Archdiocese, plaintiffs’ claim is premised on the theory that the Archdiocese had a duty to disclose the information about the true purpose of the donations.

“Michigan courts have recognized that silence cannot constitute actionable fraud unless it occurred under circumstances where there was a legal duty of disclosure.”

Mississippi Supreme Court Rejects Claims By Pastor's Former Wife Against His Church On Unusual Facts

In Woodard v. Miller, (MS Sup. Ct., Aug. 12, 2021), the Mississippi Supreme Court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in an unusual context.  Plaintiff Kim Miller married Andrew Johnson when he was a seminary student studying to be a United Methodist Church minister. Church officials encouraged Miller to give up her higher education plans to serve as a minister's wife, and told her that the church would provide for her needs. After more than 20 years of marriage, Miller filed for divorce. She took this step after Johnson confessed to her that he was gay, had contracted HIV from an extramarital affair, and had infected Miller.

Miller sued her ex-husband, the United Methodist Church Conference and a fellow-pastor asserting a variety of claims. She asserted that "had the conference and the fellow minister followed United Methodist policy and procedure, they would have discovered Johnson’s behavior and remedied it or warned Miller before she contracted HIV."

The court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the church, saying in part:

[U]nder the First Amendment, for Miller’s claim to proceed against MUMC, the claimed assumed duty cannot be religious or ecclesiastical in nature.... And we are hard-pressed to see how Miller’s claim would hold up if it were against a non-religious employer. Though Miller personally interpreted MUMC’s promise to provide for her and her family if she gave up her own career goals as both an assurance of sufficient financial remuneration and a guarantee against her husband committing adultery, such an interpretation would be considered wholly unreasonable if the promise was being made by, say, a law firm, a hospital, or a technology company. In other words, Miller interpreted the assurances of MUMC ministers as including guaranteeing the success of her marriage and family life precisely because her fiancé was going into church ministry. Thus, her claim fails because the religious nature of his employer cannot be the basis for recognizing a legal duty....

The court dismissed Miller's claim against the fellow-pastor because: "a fiduciary duty cannot arise merely from a minister-church member relationship."

Finally, the court, over the dissent of two judges allowed plaintiff to move ahead on her claims against her former husband, rejecting his defense that the claims against him were released as part of the divorce settlement. The majority held that Johnson had waived this defense.

Content of Sermon Protected By Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Hullibarger v. Archdiocese of Detroit, (MI App., July 8, 2021), a Michigan state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit claiming that a priest's sermon at the funeral of plaintiff's son amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress, misrepresentation and invasion of privacy. The court also held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of  a negligent hiring, supervision and retention claim. According to the court:

Plaintiff’s son committed suicide in early December 2018, but his family kept the manner of his death from the public. Plaintiff’s pastor, defendant Father Don LaCuesta, officiated at the funeral and during his homily revealed the suicide of plaintiff’s son to the public. He then proceeded to preach about suicide as a grave sin and specifically about how it endangered the immortal soul of plaintiff’s son.

Virginia Muslim Politician Sues Over Lynching Threat

 A civil damage action for racial, religious and ethnic harassment in violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1 was filed yesterday in federal district court by Qasim Rashid, a Virginia politician who is an Ahmadiyya Muslim and human rights activist.  Rashid sued Joseph Vandevere who used anonymous social media accounts to make violent threats, including the threat of lynching, against Rashid. The complaint (full text) in Rashid v. Vandevere, (ED VA, filed 5/19/2021), also alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress. In June 2020, Vandevere was sentenced in a criminal case to ten months in prison for making threats against Rashid. Muslim Advocates issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New Hampshire Priest Sues Conservative Catholic Website For Defamation

A suit alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress was filed last Friday in a New Hampshire federal district court by a New Hampshire Catholic priest against the controversial Church Militant website and persons affiliated with it. The complaint (full text) in de Laire v. Voris, (D NH, filed 2/5/2021), contends that false attacks on the character of Father Georges de Laire were published on the traditionalist website and on YouTube by Gary Michael Voris, his Church Militant media company and another reporter for the company. The false attacks began after Father de Laire issued a decree banning the New Hampshire-based St. Benedict Center from holding itself out as being affiliated with the Catholic Church or purporting to hold Roman Catholic religious services on its property.  According to the complaint, St. Benedict Center champions the views put forward in the 1940's by Father Leonard Feeney who "became known for incendiary and hate-filled speeches, primarily anti-Semitic in nature." Feeney was ultimately expelled from the Jesuit Order and excommunicated from the Catholic Church over these views and another doctrinal disagreement. [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Parishioners Sue Claiming Wrongful Removal of Priest

An unusual lawsuit was recently filed against the Archdiocese of Detroit by 20 parishioners of a Detroit Roman Catholic parish. The suit filed in a Michigan state trial court claims plaintiffs suffered extreme emotional distress when their priest was falsely accused of sexually abusing a minor and was removed . The complaint (full text) in Dux v. Bugarin, (MI Cir. Ct., filed 1/31/2020), alleges that the Archdiocese, afraid of being attacked by the press for failure to respond to sex abuse charges, twisted allegations and engaged in improper investigatory interrogations to fabricate a rape charge against Fr. Eduard Perrone.  It further alleges that Michael Bugarin, the priest charged with conducting the investigation of Fr. Perrone, is a conservative who was opposed to reforms in the Church advocated by plaintiffs and by Fr. Perrone. The complaint also claims that defendants fraudulently failed to disclose that funds solicited in their annual Catholic Services Appeal would be used for the investigation of Fr. Perrone. Detroit Free Press reports on the lawsuit.

Muslim Woman Sues Theater Over Pepperoni Pizza

Redondo Beach Patch reports on a lawsuit filed last week by an observant Muslim woman against a California movie theater chain over a pizza served at the theater. The paper recounts in part:

... [Plaintiff claims] she ordered a cheese pizza at a Redondo Beach theater in 2017 and instead was given pepperoni pizza, which she accidentally ate a portion of in the dark auditorium, violating her religious laws against consuming pork.

Kiara Rivers is suing American Multi-Cinema Inc., alleging religious discrimination, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence....

"As a devout Muslim, (Rivers) considers the consumption of pork a violation of her duties as a Muslim and detrimental to her spiritual purity to the point that nothing can be done to restore her spiritual integrity," the suit states.

Proselytizing Does Not Rise To Level of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

In Trombetta v Kruse, (NY Civ. Ct., Nov. 19, 2019), a New York state trial court held that a proselytizing pamphlet and a subsequent e-mail did not amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress, nor was any injury proven. According to the court:

The pamphlet ... shows a cartoon depiction of a catholic who is sent into the "lake of fire" to "burn in hell" for practicing as a catholic, instead of following the version of Christianity promoted by the pamphlet which is evangelical Baptist. The tract urges the reader to reject Catholicism, or be barred from heaven....

... [D]efendant wrote plaintiff an email that included the following statements: ... My family does not believe and, if any of them were to die tomorrow, they would not go to heaven but to hell. I sent them tracts because I do not want them to go to hell. I want them to go to heaven. It is what I want for you too.

The court held in part:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the courts of this State from evaluating the religious beliefs of a church or individual....

While the court understands why the plaintiff found the tract and email disturbing, the court does not find that the conduct rose to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense To Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

In Lawrence v. Treybig, (TX App., June 20, 2019), a Texas state appeals court affirmed a trial court jury's award of nominal damages and a permanent injunction against Arthur Lawrence who had been hired by a wealthy family as a basketball coach for their son, Cody Treybig, when he was nine years old. Lawrence remained in that position for six years during which time he convinced Cody of Lawrence's paranoid religious views:

Lawrence ... told Cody that Jimmy Treybig, Cody’s father, was a high-level member of an evil society called the Illuminati; that Cody’s school, his hometown of Austin, and colleges in general were full of evil Illuminati members; that the rapture was imminent; that Cody’s parents intended to have an RFID5 chip implanted into Cody’s body, which would damn him to hell; that the RFID chip would control Cody’s mind and would contain cyanide that could be used to kill him if he resisted; and that Cody’s parents and brother hated him and were evil.

In the suit against Lawrence for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court rejected Lawrence's free exercise defense:

Lawrence argues that the jury could not determine whether his conduct was extreme and outrageous without weighing the veracity of his religious beliefs and that the trial court therefore should have dismissed Cody’s claims. However, whether Lawrence’s views are sincerely held or whether he believed that he was helping to save Cody from damnation is irrelevant under the facts of this case, in which Lawrence’s conduct, no matter its motivation, was extreme and outrageous.

The court affirmed the award of damages of $4 and an injunction barring Lawrence from coming within 1,000 feet of Cody or contacting Cody or his family.