United States: Religious Institutions Update: August 2016

When was the last time your organization reviewed your insurance policies? Not all policies are equal. Many religious organizations are underinsured. Most should have general liability, property, professional liability, directors and officers (D&O), commercial auto or hired and non-owned auto insurance, workers' compensation and umbrella insurance. Supplemental to general liability coverage, many churches will need endorsements for fine art items, such as paintings, tapestries, stained glass, ornamental woodwork or tiles, and musical instruments, such as organs. They also will want to ensure that they cover damage suffered by, or damages caused by, not only the officers and employees, but also members and volunteers to the extent feasible. In the event of counseling or other professional services, religious institutions need professional liability coverage to guard against malpractice, negligent counseling, breach of confidential information and invasion of privacy claims. D&O coverage is essential to protect against claims made as a result of an action that a director, officer or board member made on behalf of the organization. Transportation risks involving high-capacity and rented vehicles are substantial ones for churches, schools and social service organizations. Beyond this, many religious institutions will want to consider employment practices coverage.

Purchasing the right policies is not the only thing that is important; carefully evaluating coverage is equally so. Most policies exclude altogether certain types of claims, such as sexual harassment or claims without physical injuries, thereby excluding emotional distress, except perhaps in connection with "bodily injury." Other policies offer a legal defense, but no liability coverage. Nearly all liability policies exclude coverage for intentional injuries, and some define the concept broadly. Some policies let you hire the defense counsel of your choice up to a particular hourly rate (with the insured paying any difference), whereas others do not. When evaluating your insurance profile, independent brokers are helpful resources, but so can be lawyers who specialize in coverage evaluation. In some situations, they may recommend self-insurance options including captive insurance entities that enable organizations to benefit from low loss ratios, rather than their insurance companies reaping the benefits.

Key Cases

Appellants Lack Standing to Challenge Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program

In McCall v. Scott, Case No. 1D15-2752 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 16, 2016), the court ruled that the appellants lack standing to challenge the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program (FTCSP) because they failed to allege that they suffered any special injury and failed to establish that the legislature exceeded any constitutional limitation on its taxing and spending authority when it authorized the program. Appellants challenged the FTCSP under Florida's Blaine amendment, article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and Florida's requirement for uniform and adequate funding for school education, article IX, section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution. Under the FTCSP, taxpayers make voluntary contributions to scholarship funding organizations (SFOs) and receive a tax credit. Eligible parents and guardians apply to SFOs to secure a scholarship for their student at a school of their choice, including religious and nonreligious schools. Eligibility hinges on low income level.

Hospital System Does Not Qualify for Church-Plan Exemption to ERISA

In Rollins v. Dignity Health, Case No. 15-15351, 2016 WL 3997259 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016), the court of appeals affirmed the lower court's decision finding that Dignity Health, the result of a merger between hospital systems established by the Sisters of Mercy Congregations in Auburn, California and Burlingame, California, does not qualify to have a "church plan," notwithstanding a 1983 General Counsel Memorandum from the Internal Revenue Service stating the opposite. The court ruled that: (1) to qualify for the church-plan exemption of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a plan must have been established by a church and maintained either by a church or by a principal-purpose organization; (2) it was not required to give deference to the IRS memorandum; and (3) its determination that a plan must have been established by a church to qualify for the church-plan exemption does not unconstitutionally discriminate against certain religious organizations or interfere with internal matters of church governance in violation of the First Amendment.

Public Grants to Private New Jersey Universities Struck Under State Constitution

In Am. Civil Liberties Union of N.J. v. Hendricks, 445 N.J. Super 452 (N.J. App. 2016), the court ruled the award of public grants from a bond initiative to Princeton Theological Seminary and Beth Medrash Govoha (the Yeshiva) violated article 1, paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution, which states: "No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform." The funds were to be expended on classrooms, libraries, and computer and audio-visual equipment, not places of worship or "ministries." The Yeshiva specializes in advanced undergraduate and graduate Talmudic scholarship. Princeton Theological Seminary is associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Court Enjoins Mississippi Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act

In Barber v. Bryant, No. 3:16-CV-417-CWR-LRA, 3:16-CV-442-CWR-LRA, 2016 WL 3562647 (S.D. Miss. Jun 30, 2016), the court enjoined under the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause a Mississippi statute, HB 1523, which states that Mississippi will not discriminate against citizens who hold one of three "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions" reflecting disapproval of lesbian, gay, transgender and unmarried persons. By "discrimination," the law refers to consequences in the realm of taxation, employment benefits, court proceedings, licenses and financial grants. The court ruled that the law violates the Establishment Clause because the state has preferred certain religious beliefs over others; i.e., those who believe that same-sex couples should marry. The court ruled that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it has the design, purpose and effect to single out lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) and unmarried citizens for unequal treatment under the law. The state argued that HB 1523 is justified by a compelling government interest in accommodating the free exercise of religion, but the court found that the state failed to identify any actual, concrete problem of free exercise violations that could not be remedied under the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act or otherwise. The court also found that HB 1523 violates the First Amendment because its religious exemption comes at the expense of other citizens.

Polygamy Challenge Mooted

In Brown v. Buhman, 822 F. 3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2016), the court ruled that a section 1983 action filed by a polygamist family challenging the constitutionality of Utah's bigamy statute was moot because of the county attorney's announcement of a policy limiting "bigamy" prosecutions to circumstances also involving child or spouse abuse, domestic violence, welfare fraud or another crime. The statute at issue referred to bigamy, but extended liability to defendants with more than two spouses. The appeals court overturned the district court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the policy. The court denied that it was material that the county attorney's successor could change the policy, that the county attorney viewed the statute as constitutional or that the timing of the announcement was opportune. As to the last point, the court observed that the mid-proceeding announcement actually assures compliance because failing to observe it could expose him to prosecution for perjury or contempt of federal court.

Church Challenge Dismissed to California's Abortion Services Mandate in Health Coverage

In Foothill Church v. Rouillard, in her official capacity as Dir. of the Cal. Dep't of Managed Health Care, No. 2:15-cv-02165-KJM-EFB, the court dismissed the complaint of several churches arising from letters issued by the California Department of Managed Health Care to seven private health insurers that required them to remove any limitations on or exclusions of abortion services from the health care coverage they offer. Plaintiffs sued under the Free Exercise, Establishment, Free Speech and Equal Protection Clauses. The court determined that the letters and underlying laws were neutral and generally applicable and that California had a rational basis for them. Plaintiffs argued they were not neutral because, inter alia, the director issued the mandate after learning that two Catholic universities eliminated elective abortion coverage from their health care plans and knew that the mandate would primarily affect churches and religious employers. The court referred to these allegations as conclusory and speculative. Plaintiffs argued that the law was not generally applicable because of several exemptions and because the director has discretion to grant additional individual exemptions and waivers. The court disagreed and said the letters apply equally to insurers regardless of whether the motivation for the limitations or exclusions is religious or secular. The court ruled that a reasonable observer would not view the director's letters as sending primarily a message disapproving religion, and that the director had a plausible secular purpose for his conduct, preventing any Establishment Clause claim.

Church Road Sign Not an Establishment of Religion

In Tearpock-Martini v. Borough, No. 3:12cv2223, 2016 WL 3959034 (M.D. Pa. July 22, 2016), the court ruled that Shickshinny Borough did not violate the Establishment Clause by allowing and assisting with the placement of a road sign stating "Bible Baptist Church Welcomes You!" The sign included a directional arrow containing the words "one block" and two symbols, a cross and a Bible. A sign for the church had been occasionally located at or near the same site since the 1980s. The court considered the sign a religious display, but ruled that a reasonable observer would think it is a sign to a church and nothing more. The court also ruled that the action had a secular purpose; i.e., to provide direction, and did not create excessive entanglement with government.

Mandatory Prayer Violates Establishment Clause

In Marrero-Méndez v. Calixto-Rodríguez, former Carolina Area Commander for the Puerto Rico Police Dep't, No. 14-2030, 2016 WL 3902635 (1st Cir. July 19, 2016), the court ruled that superior police officers violated the Establishment Clause by holding group prayer while on duty and punishing an officer for his non-conformance. The court denied qualified immunity to the officers on the grounds that they should have known their conduct constituted illegal religious coercion. Officer Guillermo Calixto, a regional commander, summoned 40 officers for a meeting in the parking lot of a shopping mall to discuss a plan for an intervention to take place nearby. This was in the nature of a monthly meeting, at the conclusion of which Calixto asked for a volunteer to lead the group in prayer. Officer Alvin Marrero called Calixto aside and objected. Calixto became upset and directed Marrero to "abandon the formation." Then, Calixto ordered him, as he was walking away from the group, to stop and stand still for the duration of the prayer. Calixto then shouted, in front of the entire formation, that Marrero was standing apart from the group because "he doesn't believe in what we believe in." After complaining about the incident and filing an administrate complaint, Marrero was transferred to a post where he was deprived of his usual law enforcement responsibilities.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Precludes DUTPA, Breach of Contract and Other Claims

DUTPA Claim Against Secular Funeral Home

In Mammon v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla., Inc., No. 4D15-1788, 2016 WL 3002341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), the court ruled that a widow's action against a secular funeral home for violation of the Florida Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (DUTPA) was barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant misrepresented that her deceased husband would be buried in accordance with "Jewish burial customs and traditions." In particular, she observed non-Jews buried near her husband, which she said violated these traditions. The defendants relied upon two papers suggesting disagreement about this. The court dismissed the case because it determined that it could not decide the case without determining what constitutes "Jewish burial customs and traditions," which is, at its core, an ecclesiastical matter.

Breach of Contract Against Catholic School

In re St. Thomas High School, No. 14-16-00114-cv, 2016 WL 2854412 (Tex. App. [14th Dist.] May 12, 2016), the court ruled the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine required dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a student and his parents' claim against a Catholic high school not owned by a church for breach of contract after the school expelled him. The reason for the expulsion was the parents' harassing conduct related to dissatisfaction with how faculty handled their child's objection to test grades and the parents' false accusation of sexual harassment against their child. The school fully reimbursed the parents for prepaid tuition for the spring semester. The court first found that the abstention doctrine applies to the school, although not a church. Second, the court determined that the parents' letter and original petition invoked spiritual standards, and that judicial resolution of the claim would interfere with the organization's management of its internal affairs or encroach upon its internal governance.

Breach of Contract, Collusion and Fraud Against Sikh Temple

In Singh v. Sandhar, No. 14-15-00087-CV, 2016 WL 2743314 (Tex. App. [14th Dist.] May 10, 2016), the court ruled that the trial judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of purported members of a Sikh temple against the executive committee for breach of contract, collusion, and fraud, alleging that they were not included on an approved temple membership list and that the organization did not follow its bylaws.

Declaratory Judgment Against Church

In Mouton v. Christian Faith Missionary Baptist Church, No. 01-15-0088-CV, 2016 WL 3345478 (Tex. App. [1st Dist.] May 24, 2016), the court ruled that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine over former church members' action seeking various declarations and money damages relating to their expulsion from church and the church's purported failure to follow its bylaws regarding pastoral selection.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Preclude Fiduciary Duty and Other Claims

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Pension Board

In Bacon v. Bd. of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am., No. A15-1999, 2016 WL 3961960 (Minn. App. July 25, 2016), the court ruled that it has jurisdiction under a neutral principles of law approach over appellants' argument that the defendant breached its fiduciary duty by failing to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence in managing the assets of a retirement plan, and failing to act in the exclusive interest of participants in the selection and retention of plan investment options. The court found that the plan documents contain the fiduciary duties, such that resolution of the dispute would not disturb a ruling of an ecclesiastical body and could be resolved under a neutral law, the Minnesota Prudent Investor Act. The court ruled that dismissal also was not required under the Minnesota Freedom of Conscience Act because adjudicating the case would not burden the exercise of religion.

Wage and Hour, Breach of Contract and Title VII Claims Against Churches

In Bigelow v. Sassafras Grove Baptist Church, 786 S.E. 2d 358 (N.C. App. 2016), the court ruled that the ecclesiastical abstention or ministerial exception doctrine does not bar a former pastor from stating a claim for breach of a written employment contract for an indefinite term and violation of the Wage and Hour Act against his former church for failure to pay compensation and benefits allegedly due him when he became disabled. The court distinguished the applicability of the ministerial exception doctrine because the plaintiff's complaint did not challenge the church's decision to terminate his employment, but instead sought to enforce a contractual obligation regarding his compensation and benefits. The court distinguished the applicability of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine because the court could decide plaintiff's contract-based claims applying "neutral principles of law," rather than ecclesiastical doctrine or church law.

In Collette v. Archdiocese of Chicago, No. 16 C 2912, 2016 WL 4063167 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2016), the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss a lawsuit that the former Director of Worship and Director of Music for Holy Family Parish filed when he was terminated after defendants learned that the plaintiff was engaged to and intended to marry his same-sex partner. Plaintiff sued under Title VII, the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance for employment discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and marital status. The court ordered limited discovery into factors such as whether the plaintiff's position involved significant religious training and a recognized religious mission. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the title alone of his position was sufficient to cause dismissal under the ministerial exception doctrine.

In Jackson v. Mt. Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church Deacon Bd., No. 1-14-3045, 2016 IL App (1st) 13045 (Ill App. [1st Dist.] June 30, 2016), the court ruled that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not preclude the trial court from determining whether a church violated its bylaws and thereby breached an oral employment contract as alleged by its former pastor; however, the court ruled that the church had not in fact violated them.

College Properly Excluded Applicant Who Brought Up Religion Too Much

In Buxton v. Kurtinitis, No. JFM-14-2836, 2016 WL 3582004 (D. Md. June 28, 2016), the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Program Director and Coordinator of Radiation Therapy at the Community College of Baltimore County against the Plaintiff's Establishment Clause and Equal Protection claims. Plaintiff was not admitted to the program because, among other reasons, he allegedly brought up religion a great deal during his interview, and the director therefore assumed he would do so with patients. The court ruled there was no Establishment Clause violation because the director had a secular purpose for her assessment: not to have religious beliefs expressed to patients who did not raise the issue. Because the record showed that the director selected two candidates who made faith-based statements, the court also ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was disfavored for mentioning religion.

Religious Institutions in the News

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
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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