United States: Religious Institutions Update: May 2013

Nathan A. Adams, IV is a Partner in our Tallahassee office.

Lex Est Sanctio Sancta

Timely Topics

Intellectual property is a legal construct referring to creations of the mind for which exclusive rights are recognized. Common types include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress and, sometimes, trade secrets. The property is typically intangible, e.g., literary, musical and artistic works that could include sermons, speeches, books, broadcasts, articles and songs; discoveries and inventions; and phrases, symbols and designs, such as easily recognizable corporate brands and names. Nonprofit religious organizations own intellectual property but are not always careful to protect or enforce those rights when third parties assert them. As a result, the public may become confused as to the origin of messages, products or services when another organization adopts the same name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image or some combination of these for good or bad reasons. "Brand piracy" and "counterfeit goods or services" can be as damaging to religious organizations and misleading as any other types. Poorly defined intellectual property rights can lead to serious internal division, too; for example, when a dispute arises about whether an employee or the employer owns an original work.

As a default rule, a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment is a "work made for hire" that belongs to the employer. Determining what activities are within the scope of employment is not easy. The inquiry should begin with evaluating an employee's job description and actual responsibilities. Ahead of time, an employer and employee may contract around the work made for hire rule to provide that a work will be an employee's. After the fact, the employer may transfer or license rights to a work made for hire, but not without taking into account the exempt purposes of the organization and the value of the transfer in light of the employee's overall compensation. Tax and other considerations also arise if the organization itself promotes the private intellectual property of an officer or director. Disputes related to works also arise when there is a question whether the author is an employee or independent contractor. A multi-part legal test governs this analysis. If a work is created by an independent contractor, it will count as a work for hire if the work is specially ordered or commissioned, a written agreement provides that it is a work for hire and the work is a particular kind. Clearly, assigning intellectual property rights before disputes arise is always easier than resolving the disputes afterwards.

Key Cases

Missouri House of Worship Protection Act Upheld

In Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, Inc. v. Joyce, No. 4:12CV1501 ERW, 2013 WL 1703371 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 19, 2013), the court ruled as constitutional the House of Worship Protection Act, which, inter alia, criminalizes intentionally and unreasonably disturbing, interrupting or disquieting any house of worship by using profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or making noise either within the house of worship or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of the worship services. Plaintiffs who regularly picket and distribute leaflets outside of churches claimed the act violated the Free Speech Clause of the state and federal Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution. The court ruled that the act is a content-neutral regulation subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny, because it makes no distinction based on the content or message conveyed by protestors, rather than a content-based regulation subject to strict scrutiny, which does. A content-neutral time, place and manner regulation may be imposed in a public forum if it: (1) serves a significant governmental interest; (2) is narrowly tailored; and (3) allows for ample alternative channels for communication. The court held that the act satisfied all of these requirements. It said the act: (1) promotes a significant governmental interest in preserving and protecting the free exercise of religion; (2) applies to picketing exclusively within a house of worship or near it, for a short period during a worship service; and (3) leaves open ample alternative modes of communication such as leafleting when services are not being held, door-to-door proselytizing and mail. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claim that the act was void for vagueness due to imprecise terms such as "rude," "indecent" and "profane," on the grounds that people of ordinary intelligence would reasonably understand the prohibited conduct based on common usage and definitions of the terms, and the scienter requirement adequately addresses the plaintiff's concern that protestors could unknowingly violate the statute.

Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals Applies Wrong Religious and Charitable Use Tax Exemption Standard

In Larimer Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs v. Colorado Prop. Tax Admin., No. 07CA0422 & 11CA0725 (Colo.App. Apr. 11, 2013), the court ruled that the board of assessment appeals applied the wrong legal standard when it found that the Young Men's Christian Association of the Rockies (YMCA) Snow Mountain Ranch and Estes Park Center did not qualify for a religious purposes property tax exemption or charitable use property tax exemption with respect to facilities other than its chapels and religious activities center. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The 2,187-acre Snow Mountain Ranch consists of 40 cabins, 12 vacation homes, 61 campsites, a chapel, conference facilities, dining halls, a library, a swimming pool, athletic and recreational facilities, a laundromat, and maintenance and administration buildings. The 860-acre Estes Park Center consists of 179 cabins, 25 vacation homes, 451 lodge rooms, a chapel, a museum, a library, conference facilities, auditoriums, dining halls, a swimming pool, a skating park and rink, a miniature golf course, a laundromat, and maintenance and administration buildings. Most activities are free or offered at nominal cost to guests. The court ruled that Colorado has adopted a broad view, exempting "necessarily incidental" property and activities of the religious organization entitled to a tax exemption. Toward this end, the YMCA's declaration of religious purposes is presumptive with regard to the religious purposes for which the property is used. Instead, with respect to the religious exemption, the board wrongly considered evidence of: (1) some guests' purposes, subjective experiences and choices during their stays; (2) access by public school children to the property; (3) the YMCA's receipt of bond funds; (4) the YMCA's lack of control over a "majority of the programs" within its facilities; and (5) the YMCA's marketing to the public without advertising religion. With respect to the charitable exemption, the board focused almost entirely on the use by families of the facilities equal to just 12–16 percent of the use. State law provides that if a charitable property is used for non-exempt purposes for fewer than 208 adjusted hours, or the non-qualifying purposes result in less than $25,000 of gross rental income in a year, the property maintains its full exempt status.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Precludes Clergy Members' Contract and Tort Claims

In Susan v. Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Am., No. 1-12-0697, 2013 WL 1636467 (Ill.App. 1st Dist. Apr. 16, 2013), the court ruled that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded it from taking jurisdiction over a breach of contract and tort claims because they were based on the allegation that the archbishop lacked the authority to transfer him, where the archbishop's authority over disciplinary and personnel matters arose from not only the constitution and bylaws, but also canon law, notwithstanding that no court was convened when the plaintiff demanded trial in a church court to combat the reason given for his transfer ("disloyalty"). The court distinguished Ervin v. Lilydale Progressive Missionary Baptist Church, 351 Ill.App.3d 41, 43 (2004), where it applied a neutral principles of law approach and decided a dispute, because the church's own secular procedures unambiguously placed the power to remove the church pastor with the congregation rather than the board; resolving the case did not require inquiry into church doctrine. In contrast, the court said that in this case, in order to find that the archbishop had no authority to unilaterally transfer the plaintiff without first referring the matter to the church courts it would have to first determine the extent of the bishop's authority for such an action under canon law. Furthermore, the bylaws placed jurisdiction over the plaintiff's grievance in the hands of the church judicial system. As for the plaintiff's tort claims, the court held the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine provides protection for statements that are made in the context of disciplinary proceedings as part of a church's right to regulate its clergy, whereas the plaintiff's claims were all based on internal communications within the church during the disciplinary proceedings. "Ultimately, the problem with all of plaintiff's arguments in this case is that the constitution and bylaws ... are not the final word on the authority of the ... bishop."

In Torralva v. Peloquin, No. 13-12-00342-CV, 2013 WL 1683621 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi Apr. 18, 2013), the court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception bars an associate pastor's claims for defamation, conspiracy, tortuous interference with contract and prospective contract, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff alleged that the head pastor asked for his resignation and relieved him of his administrative duties and office space after the plaintiff revealed to church officials that the church had financial problems, and that the church's head of deacons attempted but failed to secure the votes of a majority of deacons to oust him. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants falsely accused him of producing and disseminating pornography. The court found that the plaintiff's claims took place entirely within the context of church officials' internal efforts to remove him from his position and, thus, that trial on the plaintiff's claims would require an analysis of church discipline, ecclesiastical government or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required. There was no evidence that the plaintiff's reputation was harmed outside the church community. Also, there was no evidence that any of the alleged torts pose a "substantial threat to public safety, peace or order" as necessary to avoid the abstention doctrine. Therefore, the court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over all of the causes of action.

Church States First Amendment Claim against a Prosecutor in a Disturbing the Peace Case

In Faith Baptist Church v. Waterford Township, No. 10-1406, 2013 WL 1489387 (6th Cir. Apr. 11, 2013), the court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit against Walter Bedell, the prosecuting attorney for Waterford Township, Michigan, in his individual capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief, and of the plaintiff's First Amendment claims, based on lack of standing. Although Mr. Bedell threatened to prosecute, he did not actually charge church members for disturbing the peace when residents complained to the Waterford Police Department that the music at the church was too loud and actually shook the windows in their residences. The court ruled that the threat of criminal prosecution was "the exercise of governmental power" necessary to support an injury in fact based on chilling speech. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and section 1983 conspiracy claims.

Property of Episcopal Church that Preceded Diocese Belongs to Diocese

In Falls Church v. Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, Record No. 120919, 2013 WL 1687202 (Va. Apr. 18, 2013), the court affirmed the decision of the Virginia circuit court enjoining the congregation of Falls Church from further use of property conveyed to it decades before the congregation affiliated with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia. When the congregation disaffiliated with the diocese to become part of a mission of the province of the Church of Nigeria, the court found that it had to give up the property because of an implied constructive trust over it in favor of the diocese. It also found that the existence of the trust turned on the enactment of the Dennis Canon in 1979, which created an express trust in "[a]ll real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation." The court rejected as not raised below the congregation's argument that it was incorrect for the trial court to rely upon the diocese's canons to determine property ownership. As distinguished from an implied trust, the court found that a statute precluding conveyances and transfer of real property to a church precluded an express trust in favor of the diocese. It ruled that the relationship between a local church and its hierarchical parent is akin to a contractual relationship, and that when the congregation joined the diocese it agreed to be bound by every diocesan "canon which shall be framed." For this reason, the court was not persuaded by the congregation's argument that there was no evidence of mutual assent with regard to the diocese's rights over the property. Furthermore, the court found that the congregation allowed the diocese to play an active role in its overall operations. The court also disagreed with the congregation that the award of the property to the diocese violated the First Amendment, because the dispute was resolved in a "wholly secular manner through the use of neutral principles of law." Nevertheless, it assigned error to the trial court's award of funds given the congregation after it disaffiliated, ruling that once it did so, the hierarchical church no longer had any interest in any property the congregation subsequently acquired.

Tort Claims against Homeless Shelter Dismissed

In Pilgrim v. Our Lady of Victories Church, No. 12-P-685, 2013 WL 1759415 (Mass.App. Apr. 25, 2013), the court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint for negligence, public nuisance and outrageous conduct against the defendants, who operate a homeless shelter in the vicinity of her home. The plaintiff complained that her tenants were the victim of breaking and entering and battery by men visiting the shelter. The court ruled there was no special relationship between the defendant and plaintiff to support a negligence claim, no allegations of facts showing that the plaintiff suffered a particularized injury "different in kind" from the harm the rest of the community suffered to support a public nuisance, and no outrageous conduct that arose from defendant's invitation to her to "come and visit the [shelter] and once (the women) got to know the homeless men there they would not be afraid of them."

District Entitled to Lock Out Church, But Not Retain Personal Property

In Galilean Family Worship Ctr v. Cent. Fla. Dist Church, No. 5D12-235, 2013 WL 1775532 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 26, 2013), the court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for "wrongful eviction," "wrongful foreclosure," unjust enrichment and conversion, but reversed the court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for conversion. Galilean Family Worship Center occupied premises owned by the Central Florida District Church of the Nazarene Church. The defendant demanded that the plaintiff vacate its property due to, among other things, the "cultural divide" with defendant's leaders. When the plaintiff refused, the defendant locked the plaintiff out of the property. The plaintiff sued and the trial court dismissed the case on all counts. The appellate court affirmed except for dismissal of the conversion claim, inasmuch as the defendant offered no legal basis for any claim to the personal property that the plaintiff allegedly left on the property.

Factual Questions Preclude Award of Property to Congregation

In Mountain Lakes Dist. v. Oak Grove Methodist Church, No. 2111157, 2013 WL 1777731 (Ala. Civ. App. Apr. 26, 2013), the court reversed a summary judgment in favor of Oak Grove Methodist Church and remanded for further proceedings the question of whether real property belongs to the congregation or the United Methodist Church denomination. The court ruled that there was ambiguity regarding the intent of the grantors based on the description of the grantees in the deeds, precluding summary judgment and requiring resolution of various factual disputes. The disputed issues include the intention of the grantors in each deed, import of certain language in a deed, the organizational structure of the church, and the capacity, propriety or status of its representative to bring the case or to be awarded ownership of any property.

Court Refuses to Enjoin Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

In MK Chambers Co. v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-11379, 2013 WL 1340719 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2013), the court denied the plaintiffs' emergency ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order against the contraceptive coverage mandate contained within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The court held there was no reason the plaintiffs could not have given notice of the lawsuit to the defendant and, therefore, did not issue a temporary restraining order. In any event, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown they would prevail under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), because the contraceptive coverage mandate applies to the corporate entity, not to its officers or owners, and any burden imposed on them was too remote or attenuated to be considered substantial. The court also was not persuaded that the corporation had a right to proceed under the Free Exercise Clause either on its own or through its owners because a corporation is not the alter ego of its owners. In addition, the court ruled that the mandate is a neutral, generally applicable law and that it regulates conduct, not speech. Last, the court ruled that equity does not favor the plaintiffs, since they waited two months after the mandate before filing their lawsuit.

Religious Institutions in the News

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom identified 15 nations where abuse of religious liberty is "systemic, egregious and ongoing." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/uscirf-cites-15-countries-for-religious-freedom-violations_n_3188192.html

U.S. Muslims are more moderate than Muslims worldwide, according to a new report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Policy. http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society.aspx

Pastors push back against city's "annual registration fee" as an unlawful tax. http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/east-st-louis-pastors-and-mayor-in-first-amendment-standoff/article_50c3cb0f-3d46-56e4-b949-9ec5a3ac58ce.html

Although most Americans have a Bible, the majority read it four times a year or less. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-04/national/38272570_1_american-bible-society-new-survey-moral-decline; http://www.americanbible.org/state-bible

Thirteen state attorneys general are urging the federal government to broaden religious exemptions for private businesses under the contraception mandate. http://www.christianpost.com/news/13-attorneys-general-urge-exemption-for-businesses-under-hhs-mandate-93227/

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Holland & Knight
Holland & Knight
Holland & Knight
Holland & Knight
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Holland & Knight
Holland & Knight
Holland & Knight
Holland & Knight
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions