Jessica Shannon v. Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church U.S.
476 S.W.3d 612
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Shannon sues Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church over a confidential separation agreement and disparagement clause following her termination as Elementary Ministries Director.
- Church later references Shannon to Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, contributing to Shannon’s termination there.
- Shannon alleges breach of the non-disparagement, confidentiality, and other terms of the Agreement, plus tort and fraudulent inducement claims.
- Church moves to dismiss for ecclesiastical abstention and to grant summary judgment on several grounds, including Labor Code chapter 103 immunity and waiver theories.
- Court holds ecclesiastical abstention does not apply to the disparagement claims, but finds some issues warranting summary judgment or remand; the ministerial exception is not a jurisdictional bar; chambers of fact remain for several contract and tort claims.
- Court reverses in part, affirms in part, and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecclesiastical abstention applies to disparagement claims? | Shannon’s claims arise from a secular settlement; no doctrinal dispute. | Disparagement concerns church internal matters. | Ecclesiastical abstention does not apply. |
| Ministerial exception as jurisdictional bar? | Not a jurisdictional bar; continues to pursue claims. | Should preclude review of employment decisions. | Ministerial exception not jurisdictional; trial court error on jurisdiction. |
| Labor Code Chapter 103 immunity applies? | Church statements do not reflect job performance. | Statements fall within 103 scope. | Chapter 103 immunity not conclusively established for Church. |
| Waiver of fraudulent inducement claim by authorization to discuss past employment? | Authorization did not clearly waive fraudulent inducement rights. | Authorization should foreclose claims. | No clear, unequivocal waiver of fraudulent inducement. |
| Breach of contract and disparagement conduct? | Disparagement and reference checks breached the Agreement. | Disparagement not proven; conduct lawful. | Genuine fact questions exist; not conclusive on breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1976) (ecclesiastical abstention; church autonomy safeguards)
- Westbrook v. Penley, 231 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2007) (constitutional protections for church self-government)
- Tran v. Fiorenza, 934 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. App.—Houston 1996) (assesses ecclesiastical abstention applicability)
- Lacy v. Bassett, 132 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.—Houston 2004) (courts may review civil, contract, or property rights arising from church disputes)
- J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (interpret contract terms; give effect to plain meaning)
- Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. 1997) (intent required to waive fraudulent inducement claims)
- It. Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) (merger and liability for reliance in waivers)
- Dynegy Midstream Servs., Ltd. P’ship v. Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. 2009) (contract interpretation; neutral terms of agreement)