Arvid A. Backstrom v. Briar Hill Baptist Church, Inc., 184 So. 3d 323

Al Backstrom sued his former church, Briar Hill Baptist Church, and its former pastor Justin McLendon after Justin had an extramarital affair with Al’s wife and had counseled Al while the affair continued.
Justin began counseling Al in Aug–Nov 2011; Al informed the church on Nov 28, 2011, of Justin’s inappropriate relationship with Amber and inappropriate counseling; Justin resigned that day.
Al’s amended complaint alleged alienation of affection, malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, respondeat superior/vicarious liability, and negligent hiring/retention/supervision against Briar Hill.
Briar Hill moved for summary judgment, asserting no material fact dispute and that it neither knew nor should have known of Justin’s unfitness and that Justin’s conduct was personal and not in furtherance of church business.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Briar Hill, finding no evidence the church had actual or constructive knowledge of Justin’s propensity for such conduct and that his conduct was personal and outside the scope of employment.
Backstrom appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Negligent hiring/retention/supervision	Briar Hill failed to perform adequate background checks, lacked policies, and thus should have known of Justin’s unfitness	Church conducted reference checks, background screens, interviews, and lacked any notice of prior misconduct; no duty to uncover concealed personal activities	Summary judgment affirmed — no evidence church had actual or constructive knowledge of unfitness
Respondeat superior / vicarious liability	Justin’s counseling (breach of confidentiality) and adultery occurred during work and furthered the affair, so Briar Hill is vicariously liable	Justin’s acts were personal, for his own benefit, outside scope of employment and did not further church business	Summary judgment affirmed — sexual/adulterous acts were outside course and scope of employment
Alienation of affection claim against church	Church’s alleged lack of supervision and policies enabled the interference with the marriage	No proof church participated in or benefitted from Justin’s actions; interference was Justin’s personal conduct	No genuine issue of material fact to hold church liable
Public-policy argument (higher standard for churches)	(raised on appeal) Church should be held to heightened duty given pastoral role	Argument not raised below and no authority cited; procedurally barred	Not considered on appeal; issue forfeited

Parmenter v. J&B Enterprises Inc., 99 So. 3d 207 (Miss. Ct. App.) (summary-judgment standard; negligent hiring requires employer notice of unfitness)
Doe ex rel. Brown v. Pontotoc Cty. Sch. Dist., 957 So. 2d 410 (Miss. Ct. App.) (employer liability requires actual or constructive notice of unfitness)
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. v. Seay, 42 So. 3d 474 (Miss.) (no duty to discover employees’ concealed personal activities)
Children's Med. Grp. P.A. v. Phillips, 940 So. 2d 931 (Miss.) (sexual/consensual affairs generally outside course and scope of employment)
Mabus v. St. James Episcopal Church, 884 So. 2d 747 (Miss.) (church vicarious liability limited to acts within course and scope of employment)
Cockrell v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 865 So. 2d 357 (Miss.) (employee romantic/sexual advances found outside scope of employment)