Greer v. North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church

Citations: 205 So. 3d 1206; 2016 Ala. LEXIS 15Docket: 1141256

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; February 4, 2016; Alabama; State Supreme Court

Dissent SummaryDissent Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justice Parker dissents from the Court's decision to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus by the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church and associated parties (collectively 'the petitioners'). The dissent argues that the First Amendment protections, as established in Ex parte Bole, apply to this case, indicating the Jefferson Circuit Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The dissent recounts the tragic events involving Reverend Terry Lee Greer, who killed his wife and injured his daughter. The plaintiffs, Suzanna Greer and Gay Blackburn Maloney, assert claims of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against the petitioners, stemming from allegations of Reverend Greer’s plagiarism and issues of mental health.

The petitioners initiated an investigation following an anonymous report regarding Greer's plagiarism. District Superintendent Bobby Alford recommended psychological testing and mental health counseling for Greer after meetings with him and other superintendents. These recommendations were approved by the NAC's executive committee, yet Greer was not informed of the decisions, nor were the plaintiffs or the church. Alford, despite being close by, failed to communicate the Cabinet's disciplinary actions to Greer, who was experiencing memory problems and declining mental health. Just before the incident, Greer reached out to Alford for help regarding his mental state, revealing prior psychiatric consultations.

Defendant Alford sent an email on January 10, 2013, reprimanding Reverend Greer hours before a shooting incident occurred. In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., arguing that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. They contended that the plaintiffs' claims were connected to the NAC’s investigation of complaints against Reverend Greer, Alford's role in that investigation, and the resulting disciplinary actions, all of which involved ecclesiastical matters. The circuit court denied the motion, prompting the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the court to grant their motion. Citing Ex parte Bole, the petitioners asserted that the court's jurisdiction was precluded by the First Amendment, which prohibits judicial intervention in religious organizations' ecclesiastical decisions. The precedent case involved a pastor suing a lay member following an investigation by the church’s hierarchy, leading to a ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over claims intertwined with ecclesiastical proceedings. The court emphasized that adjudicating such claims would necessitate an impermissible inquiry into the church's internal investigations and decisions, thereby reinforcing the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiffs’ claims of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention regarding Reverend Greer are closely linked to the petitioners' actions related to his employment and discipline, including a recommendation concerning plagiarism allegations, a confrontation meeting, a decision for psychological testing, a letter of reprimand, and responses to Reverend Greer's communications. This situation necessitates an inquiry into the ecclesiastical investigation and the petitioners' decisions regarding Greer’s employment, which parallels the findings in Ex parte Bole, where the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over similar tort claims intertwined with ecclesiastical matters. The plaintiffs assert their claims are distinct because they filed as third parties outside the church's jurisdiction; however, this distinction is deemed insignificant. The court confirms that the First Amendment protections acknowledged in Ex parte Bole apply, prohibiting jurisdiction over claims tied to ecclesiastical investigations or clergy discipline. Citing supporting cases, the court reiterates that the matters in question relate directly to the minister's employment and thus fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction, affirming the trial court's decision to deny jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims.

In Schmidt v. Bishop, the court emphasized that examining the Church Defendants' hiring and supervision of clergy raises significant First Amendment concerns, potentially leading to judicial entanglement in religious practices. Various jurisdictions have established that trial courts typically lack subject-matter jurisdiction over negligence claims involving clergy, citing concerns about interfering with religious matters. Notable cases include:

- **Louisiana**: Roppolo v. Moore ruled that claims against clergy for sexual relationships during counseling resemble impermissible clergy malpractice.
- **Maine**: Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible indicated that secular courts determining church discipline would violate the Free Exercise Clause. Swanson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland upheld that First Amendment protections barred claims related to sexual relationships during marital counseling.
- **Michigan**: Teadt v. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod concluded that claims against a pastor for sexual relationships during counseling were akin to clergy malpractice.
- **Minnesota**: Mulinix v. Mulinix held that claims based on a pastor's sexual conduct with parishioners were barred by the First Amendment.
- **Missouri**: Gibson v. Brewer determined that claims for negligent hiring and supervision were barred, although claims of intentional failure to supervise could proceed. H.R.B. v. J.L.G. similarly barred breach of fiduciary duty claims against clergy.
- **Nebraska**: Schieffer v. Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha ruled that various claims arising from a sexual relationship during counseling were barred.
- **Wisconsin**: L.L.N. v. Clauder and Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee found negligent supervision claims against a diocese were similarly barred.
- **Federal Courts**: Dausch v. Rykse and Ayon v. Gourley both upheld that the First Amendment prohibited claims related to negligent hiring and supervision linked to sexual misconduct by clergy.

Overall, these cases collectively highlight a judicial reluctance to adjudicate claims involving clergy that could infringe upon religious freedoms.