Author: churchlitigationupdate

CAN THE CHURCH LADY BE FIRED?

In those states that recognize the employment at will doctrine, church employees have no greater rights than secular employees without an employment contract. In other words, the employee can depart their employment at any time and the employer can terminate the employment at any time. While in secular employment protected classes of employees might have certain legal protections from terminations based on their characteristics, such as race or ethnicity, even these protections do not apply to church employees that have religious duties.

In a legal proceeding involving the Pastor, an “administrative employee” of the church testified in court. Other church leaders present heard the testimony and terminated the employee shortly thereafter. The employee commenced a wrongful termination action alleging the termination violated public policy which, if it existed, protected the employee from termination based on court testimony. In Heidorn v Chelten Church, Slip Op. (Pa. Super. Ct., 2016), the court affirmed dismissal of the case by the trial court because the court found no such public policy. That the motive for termination might have been retaliation for testimony was not enough to inspire a new public policy.

The opinion does not provide details about the testimony of the fired church employee or the legal proceeding involving the Pastor. Thus, it seemed that such details, no matter what they were, would not have caused the court to create such a public policy or to extend it so far as to abrogate the at will doctrine. The at will doctrine is a general employment doctrine, i.e., not related only to churches, so this opinion might apply to most secular employers as well.

TOO MUCH ECCLESIASTICAL ABSTENTION?

In most cases, the prohibition of court involvement in internal church issues is good for the court and good for the church. That is the fundamental motive behind the 1^st Amendment spawned ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. However, because generally courts default to deciding controversies brought before them, even the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine will usually give way to an internal church battle that “spills out into the street.” A court will often intervene until order is restored.

In Church of God in Christ, Inc. v L.M. Haley Ministries, Inc., Slip. Op. (Tenn. App. 2016), the trial court dismissed the case and the court of appeals affirmed. The Church of God in Christ, Inc. was held to be a hierarchical or connectional denomination and the affiliated church in question was held to be one of its affiliated churches. The founding Pastor of the church died and the presiding bishop installed a “speaker – rotation” system to prevent “dissension among those vying” to become the new Pastor. But, two years later the presiding bishop died and a new bishop was appointed. The new bishop had the authority to appoint a new Pastor and appointed himself.

But, when the new bishop in the role as the new Pastor tried to assume control of the church assets he was threatened and blocked by local church members. The opinion does not explain why this occurred. The denomination filed a lawsuit to regain control of the church property. Some of the local church members tried to initiate the process to depart from the denomination but did not complete the process and the denomination excommunicated some of the members. However, because the church had not withdrawn from the denomination, and the denomination had not declared the church withdrawn (or excommunicated), the courts determined the dispute was internal and further court intervention was barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The court would not declare the denomination’s rights to the assets of the affiliated church and the court would not confirm the new bishop as the new Pastor pursuant to the denomination’s governing documents.

The lesson that seems to emerge is that denominational authority over assets or personnel can only be enforced by a court if the denomination decisively separates the local church as a rogue (or, though not applicable in this case, separates from the rogue Pastor) consistent with the denomination’s governing documents. The courts will not settle mere squabbles between personalities. The courts will not settle down unruly members.

THE CONFESSIONAL

There is considerable variation from one state to another and from one circumstance to another about the seal of confession. While it seems to be almost universally recognized as authoritative when administered by Roman Catholic priests, it is not always recognized for evangelical Pastors or not recognized in every circumstance. For example, child abuse reporting statutes in some states do not shield confessions to evangelical Pastors while others do within limitations.

In Sonnier v Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette, Slip Op., (WD La. 2017) (No. CIV-16-1229), the federal magistrate recommended that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff alleged the confessional was being used to interview witnesses in civil litigation (and had nothing to do with child abuse reporting). The Plaintiff alleged the confessional seal was broken by the priest that allegedly told others something about what was said and that the Diocese did nothing to stop the leak. Needless to say, the priest and the Diocese denied the allegations. Moreover, it was obvious to the magistrate that in order to determine whether any of the Plaintiff’s allegations were actionable, the court would have to apply ecclesiastical (or canon) law which the court believed would carry the court beyond the barrier of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

As an aside, and by way of example, by statute Louisiana shielded all ministers, priests and pastors to an extent from child abuse reporting regarding confessional disclosures. See, Parents of Minor Child v Diocese of Baton Rouge, ___ So3d ___, 2013 WL 5712245 (La. App., 1 Cir.)(unpublished).

THE SWING SET OF TERROR

A tragic injury to a child on the church playground will test the church insurance policy and the character of a court. Courts that will abandon the law in favor of a result are dangerous places. Churches want to be open to the community and the public even though there is no economic benefit from such inclusiveness. But, there are several risks.

In KT v Klein Road Church of God, Miss. App., Slip Op. 2016, a four year old was attending a local 4-H meeting with her mother and brother. Most likely the four year old was not a meeting participant but was on the playground. The four year fell off the swing set but when she landed struck her head on a tree root. The family were not members of the church.

The trial court dismissed the case because as a licensee, i.e., a person with permission to be on the premises, the duty the church owed the child was only to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury. If the child had been considered an invitee, the church would have had a higher duty which would include keeping the premises reasonably safe and to warn of hidden dangers that were not open and obvious. The appellate court affirmed the trial court and the case was dismissed.

The appellate court was careful to note that the child and her family were not members of the church. Therefore, because the common law duty of a premises owner did not recognize any intangible benefit to the church from the attendance of the family at the 4-H meeting, the child was not an invitee. At common law, the premises owner must enjoy a tangible benefit from the visitor or the higher duty is not invoked.

While it does not automatically follow that to a church member the church corporate owes the higher duty, it might. Because church grounds and property are typically operated and maintained by volunteers, it is especially difficult to achieve a consistent high level of repair. Also, safety standards guarded by volunteer church leaders with no training or qualifications in maintaining them, year in and year out, will lag because with all of the best intentions time and wear progress. In the internet age, finding an inspector bi-annually to inspect and report would not be burdensome. Most insurers provide such services free or upon referral.