Dolquist v. Heartland Presbytery

342 F.Supp.2d 996

Sue Ann DOLQUIST, Plaintiff, v. HEARTLAND PRESBYTERY, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV.A.03-2150-KHV.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

October 28, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joseph M. Backer, The Backer Law Firm, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.

Hillary L. Hayes, Kimberly A. Jones, Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP, Michael S. Ketchmark, Davis Ketchmark & McCreight, P.C., Kansas City, MO, Patrick E. McGrath, Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown & Enochs, Chtd., Overland Park, KS, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VRATIL, District Judge.

Sue Ann Dolquist brings suit against Heartland Presbytery and Leawood Presbyterian Church ("Leawood Presbyterian") for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. as amended, and intentional failure to supervise in violation of state law. Plaintiff also asserts a state law claim against Leawood Presbyterian for negligent infliction of emotional distress.¹ This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Leawood Presbyterian Church's Motion To Dismiss Or For Summary Judgment (Doc. # 77) filed April 1, 2004. Leawood Presbyterian seeks to dismiss plaintiff's Title VII claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. In doing so, it invokes the so-called "ministerial exception" to Title VII. Some courts have characterized this issue as jurisdictional. See, e.g., Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320 F.3d 698, 704 (7th Cir.2003); Combs v. Central Tex. Annual Conf. of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 345 (5th Cir.1999). The Tenth Circuit, however, has held that the issue is more appropriately considered a challenge to the sufficiency of plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(6). See Bryce v. Episcopal Church in Diocese of Colo., 289 F.3d 648, 654 (10th Cir.2002); see also Bollard v. Calif. Province of Soc. of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 951 (9th Cir.1999) (non-frivolous assertion of federal claim suffices to establish federal question jurisdiction even if claim is later dismissed on merits under Rule 12(b)(6)). The Court therefore considers defendant's motion as a challenge to the sufficiency of plaintiff's claims, and not a jurisdictional challenge.²

As an alternative to dismissal, Leawood Presbyterian seeks summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the "ministerial exception" to Title VII. In support of its request, Leawood Presbyterian cites only the parties' stipulations that plaintiff is an ordained minister and that from June 5, 1995 to October 7, 2001, she worked as pastor for Leawood Presbyterian. See Defendant Leawood Presbyterian Church's Brief In Support Of Its Motion To Dismiss Or For Summary Judgment (Doc. # 78) filed April 1, 2004 at 1. These naked facts do not create a sufficient record for purposes of summary judgment.³ See Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. Therefore the Court considers defendant's motion solely under Rule 12(b)(6) and, for reasons stated below, overrules the motion.

I. Legal Standards

In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well pleaded facts in the amended complaint and views them in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 118, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990). The Court makes all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff, and liberally construes the pleadings. Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Lafoy v. HMO Colo., 988 F.2d 97, 98 (10th Cir.1993). The Court may not dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle her to relief. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, Kan., 927 F.2d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir.1991). Although plaintiff need not precisely state each element of her claims, she must plead minimal factual allegations on material elements that must be proved. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991). Defendant bears the burden to show that plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts which would entitle her to relief. See, e.g., Gould Elec., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir.2000); Beck v. Deloitte & Touche, 144 F.3d 732, 735-36 (11th Cir.1998); Schrag v. Dinges, 788 F.Supp. 1543, 1552 (D.Kan.1992).

II. Facts

Plaintiff alleges the following facts:

From June 5, 1995 to October 7, 2001, plaintiff served as pastor for Leawood Presbyterian. Pretrial Order (Doc. # 86) filed April 12, 2004 at 5.⁴ During this time, John Miller was choir director and/or elder at Leawood Presbyterian. Id. at 6. Miller sexually harassed plaintiff. He repeatedly made offensive, inappropriate comments of a sexual nature, and engaged in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature including kissing and touching plaintiff in an offensive manner. Id. Miller's conduct was unwelcome, hostile and abusive and affected the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment. Id. Plaintiff complained about Miller's behavior, but Leawood Presbyterian did not investigate her claims or take remedial action. Id.

After plaintiff complained, her supervisors unfairly criticized and disciplined her. Specifically, Leawood Presbyterian retaliated by (1) threatening to terminate her employment; (2) threatening her with disparity in the terms and conditions of her employment; (3) creating a hostile work environment; (4) falsely accusing her of engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior such as wearing see-through clothing and short skirts; (5) attempting to force her to consent to rehire Miller; (6) falsely accusing her of being involved in an inappropriate relationship with a church member; (7) organizing the investigation in such a way as to cause animosity between plaintiff and female coworkers; (8) fabricating complaints about plaintiff's ability to provide meaningful sermons; (9) fabricating complaints about plaintiff's job performance; (10) suggesting that plaintiff take courses on pastoral care; and (11) demanding that plaintiff return her severance pay to fund counseling for Miller. Id. at 7. Plaintiff found her work environment so intolerable that she did not return to work after October 7, 2001.

III. Analysis

Plaintiff asserts four claims against Leawood Presbyterian: sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and intentional failure to supervise and negligent infliction of emotional distress under state law.⁵ Leawood Presbyterian seeks to dismiss the Title VII claims, arguing that because plaintiff is a church minister, a so-called "ministerial exception" precludes liability.

Title VII does not contain a specific exception for discrimination claims by ministers.⁶ Despite the lack of a statutory exemption, courts have found that the First Amendment precludes liability for certain employment discrimination claims brought by ministers against the churches which employ them. The First Amendment provides as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

United States Const., Amend. I. Under the Free Exercise Clause, government action may unconstitutionally burden the free exercise of religion in two ways: (1) by interfering with an individual's ability to observe the commands or practices of his or her faith, see, e.g., Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531-33, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993); and (2) by encroaching on the ability of a church to manage its internal affairs. See, e.g., Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952). In the latter regard, the Free Exercise Clause protects the power of religious organizations "to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine." Id. This power includes the freedom to select clergy free from government interference. See EEOC v. Catholic Univ. of Am., 83 F.3d 455, 460 (C.A.D.C.1996) (citing Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1, 16, 50 S.Ct. 5, 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929) (church function is to determine essential qualifications of chaplain and whether candidate possesses them); Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 717, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976) (questions of church discipline and composition of church hierarchy are at core of ecclesiastical concern)).

The Establishment Clause protects the separation of church and state and prevents the government from passing laws that "aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over the other." School Dist. of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 216, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963). In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), the Supreme Court articulated a three-part test to determine whether a neutral law violates the Establishment Clause: (1) whether the statute has a secular legislative purpose; (2) whether the principal or primary effect of the statute neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) whether the statute fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Id. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105 (citation omitted). Title VII satisfies the first two prongs: it has a secular purpose and it does not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. See Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1170 n. 6. Thus the only issue under the Establishment Clause is whether applying Title VII to plaintiff's claims would foster excessive entanglement with religion.

A. Cases Which Have Found That The First Amendment Precludes Employment Claims By Ministers

In Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colo., 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir.2002), the Tenth Circuit acknowledged in dicta that "courts have recognized a ministerial exception that prevents adjudication...