St. Augustine School v. Janet Cropper ( 2017 )

CORRECTED: NOVEMBER 2, 2017
RENDERED: NOVEMBER 2, 2017
TO BE PUBLISHED
cSuprttttt 438 S.W.3d 368, 372 (Ky. 2014).
s Id. (quoting Pearson ex rel. Trent v. Nat'l Feeding Sys., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 46, 49 (Ky.
2002)).
4 Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 597, 607-08 (Ky. 2014)
("ministerial exception is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved");
. Saint Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v. Edwards, 449 S.W.3d 727, 737 (Ky. 2014)
("ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine is an affirmative defense").
3
"... Appellants are not pursuing their ministerial exception defense .. .Instead,
Appellants are taking their stand solely on [the] broader abstention
. doctrine .... "5 So we will not analyze the ministerial exception and it~ possible
application to this case and confine our analysis to the ecclesiastical-
abstention doctrine.
1. Ecclesiastical-Abstention Doctrl.ne.
The ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine prohibits secular courts from
adjudicating predominantly religious issues, such as disputes relating to faith,
doctrine, and denominational governance because doing so violates the
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.6 We
recognized the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine in Kentucky law in Kirby v.
Lexington Theological Seminary:
At bottom, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is primarily
interested in preventing any chilling effect on church practices as a
result of government intrusion in the form of sec:ular courts. But
when the case merely involves a church, or even a minister, but
does not require the interpretation of actual church doctrine,
courts need not invoke the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. No
entanglement concern arises as a result of the mere inference of
religion. Courts must "look not at the label placed on the action
but at the actual Issues the court has been asked to decide." 7
This court in Saint Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v. Edwards also expounded .
on the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine:
But churches are not the only [beneficiaries] of ecclesiastical
abstention. All religious organizations are entitled to protection
under the First Amendment, so all suits that present an
ecclesiastical character, those "which concern theological
s Brief for Appellant at 31.
6 Saint Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v. Edwards, 449 S.W.3d 727 (Ky. 2014); 133
Am. Jur. Trials 379, § 7 (2014).
1 426 S.W.3d 597, 619 (Ky. 2014) (internal citations omitted).
4
controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the
conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals
. required of them" fall within the scope of the ecclesiastical-
abstention doctrine.a ·
Und~r the .ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine, the question at the heart of
whether Cropper's contract claim should be allowed is "whether [Cropper's]
breach of contract claim can be decided without wading into doctrinal waters. "9
Simply stated, deciding Cropper's breach of contract claim does not
require application of church law or doctrine. In fact, Saint Augustine's
justification for the Cropper's dismissal stems from declining student
enrollment and shrinking revenues. No matter the extent of Cropper's
involvement in the religious life of Saint Augustine, adjudicating her damages
claim for breach of her employment contract does not require the secular
court's "wading into doctrinal waters"; it is simply the termination of the lay
administrator at a parochial school. Even if Cropper had been a prominent
actor in the religious life of the community, unless Saint Augustine fired her for
reasons associated with the application of church doctrine or governance, the
ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine would not apply.
This case mirrors the factual circumstances of Kirby almost perfectly. In
Kirby, this court held the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine not to apply to a
breach-of-contract claim raised by a tenured professor, Kirby, who taught
Christian social ethics at the Lexington Theological Sem.inary.10 The Seminary
a 449 S.W.3d at 739.
9 Id. at 620.
10 Kirby v. Le'xington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 597, 601 (Ky. 2~14).
5
terminated Kirby's position because of a "tsunami of economic disasters"
causing the Seminary's budget to shri~k dramatically.11 In this case, Cropper
·was the lay administrator-the principal-of Saint Augustine School,. which
.
terminated her position because enrollment was dropping and money was
tight. We follow this Court's rejection of the Lexington Theology Seminary's
ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine defen~e in Kirby by rejecting Saint
Augustine's ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine defense today.
Therefore, we hold that the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine affirmative·
defense does not apply in this case because Cropper's "breach-of-contract
. .
claim requires no inspection or evaluation of church doctrine. Neutral
principles of law can be applied. According, the ecclesiastical abstention
doctrine does not apply .... "12
III. CONCLUSION.
We affirm the result-reached by the Court of Appeals panel and hold that
the ecclesiastical abstention do?trine does not apply to the facts of this case."
Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
All sitting. All concur.
11 Id. at 603. ·
12 Id. at 619.
6
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: .
Richard G. Meyer
Nicholas Charles Birkenhauer
Dressman Benzinger Lavelle PSC
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Gail Marie Langendorf
Busald, Funk & Zevely, PSC
7
ciupr:em:e filnurf nf ~:enfurku
2016-SC-000243-DG
SAINT AUGUSTINE SCHOOL; APPELLANTS
DIOCESE OF COVINGTON
ON R~VIEW
FROM COURT OF APPEALS
v. CASE NO. 2014-CA-001518
BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 13-CI-00024
JANET CROPPER APPELLEE
ORDER CORRECTING
The Opinion of the Court rendered November 2, 2017 is corrected on its
face by substitution of the attached Opinion in lieu of the original Opinion.
Said correction does not affect the holding of the original Opinion of the
Court.
ENTERED: November 2, 2017