Category: Uncategorized

INJURY CLAIMS BY MEMBERS – HAUNTED STAIRS

Lifetime members of the church, the people least expected, will sometimes sue their church due to an injury. The church with adequate insurance will, out of sympathy, often encourage it.

Lifetime members usually know every nook, cranny and quirk of the church building. Older church buildings are often not upgraded to reflect changing safety standards unless a remodeling program is incidentally undertaken. As a result, creaking stair cases with no rails are not uncommon in areas “behind the stage” at baptismal facilities, choir lofts, computer controls, and sound and lighting controls. In Thompson v Evergreen Baptist Church, Slip. Op. (NC App. 2016), the plaintiff choir member fell off the stair case to the choir loft that lacked rails. The trial court granted summary judgment for the church and the appellate court affirmed.

While churches should as funds permit inspect their premises to see if affordable safety improvements should be performed, it does not automatically follow that a long time church member, and especially a member with inside knowledge of the non-public areas or areas that represent a risk, will be able to press a claim successfully. Indeed, open and obvious risks and risks known to the long time member with a long history of behind the scenes access often will not support a claim.

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).