Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary
426 S.W.3d 597
| Ky. | 2014Background
- Kirby, a tenured professor of Christian social ethics at Lexington Theological Seminary for 15 years, was terminated during a 2009 financial restructuring; he sued for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and race discrimination under KRS 344.040.
- The Seminary had written faculty policies (Faculty Handbook) that limited grounds for dismissal of tenured faculty to moral delinquency, unambiguous failure to perform responsibilities, or conduct detrimental to the Seminary; Seminary offered Kirby a severance package which he declined.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Seminary on First Amendment grounds; Court of Appeals affirmed, treating Kirby as a ministerial employee and applying the ministerial exception as a jurisdictional bar.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court accepted review to decide the ministerial exception’s role in Kentucky law and whether it barred Kirby’s claims.
- The Court holds (1) Kentucky adopts the ministerial exception consistent with Hosanna‑Tabor; (2) the Seminary bears the burden to plead and prove the exception (it is an affirmative defense decided as a legal threshold question); (3) Kirby is a ministerial employee under the totality-of-circumstances test; (4) the ministerial exception bars his statutory discrimination claim but does not bar his contract claims, which can be adjudicated using neutral principles without resolving doctrinal matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kirby) | Defendant's Argument (Seminary) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kentucky recognizes the ministerial exception | Court should not adopt a per se rule and must allow claims to proceed | Ministerial exception governs and bars employment claims by ministers | Kentucky adopts the ministerial exception consistent with Hosanna‑Tabor |
| Nature and procedural posture of the exception | Exception is not jurisdictional; should not be treated as per se bar | Exception should operate to prevent suit at threshold | Exception is an affirmative defense; Seminary must plead and prove it; trial court decides ministerial status as a legal threshold |
| Whether Kirby is a ministerial employee | Kirby argues he is not a minister as a tenured, non-ordained professor | Seminary contends his duties and role made him ministerial | On the totality of circumstances (title, duties, use of title, religious functions and acts), Kirby is a ministerial employee |
| Effect of ministerial exception on statutory discrimination claim (KRS 344.040) | Statutory claim should proceed despite ministerial status | Ministerial exception bars discrimination suits by ministers | Ministerial exception bars Kirby’s KRS 344.040 race‑discrimination claim |
| Effect of ministerial exception on contract claims | Contract enforcement does not interfere with church autonomy; contract claims may proceed | Enforcement would improperly entangle courts in ecclesiastical matters and intrude on selection of ministers | Breach of contract claims may proceed under neutral principles; ministerial status does not automatically bar contract claims (material fact disputes remain) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hosanna‑Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 132 S. Ct. 694 (U.S. 2012) (recognizing the ministerial exception as rooted in the First Amendment and describing factors for identifying ministerial employees)
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (U.S. 1871) (establishing doctrine that secular courts must defer where resolution depends on doctrine, discipline, or church government)
- Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1952) (affirming church autonomy from secular control on matters of faith and doctrine)
- McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1972) (early articulation of the ministerial exception to employment discrimination claims)
- Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (permitting ministerial plaintiff’s contract claim to proceed under neutral principles while recognizing entanglement risks)
- Music v. United Methodist Church, 864 S.W.2d 286 (Ky. 1993) (Kentucky precedent emphasizing ecclesiastical abstention where resolution depends on church doctrine)