Linda Hullibarger v. Archdiocese of Detroit
354439
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Plaintiff's adult son died by suicide in December 2018; the family kept the cause private and asked the parish priest to give a positive, uplifting funeral homily.
- Father Don LaCuesta, who the family did not inform of the cause of death, disclosed at the funeral that the son had committed suicide and preached that suicide is a grave sin endangering the soul; family members objected during the service.
- Plaintiff later learned (allegedly) Father LaCuesta had prior similar conduct and raised the matter with the Archbishop; her meeting with the Archbishop did not resolve the issue.
- Plaintiff sued the Archdiocese, the parish, and Father LaCuesta alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring/supervision/retention.
- Defendants moved for dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing First Amendment ecclesiastical abstention and protected religious speech; the trial court granted dismissal and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars adjudication of claims arising from a priest's funeral homily | Hullibarger: claims concern the priest's conduct and promised format, not church doctrine | Defendants: adjudication would require resolving religious doctrine, polity, and sermon content—areas barred by the First Amendment | Abstention applies; court must not adjudicate questions requiring evaluation of religious doctrine or sermons |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Hullibarger: homily was extreme/outrageous and breached the family's request for a positive sermon | Defendants: homily is protected religious speech and evaluating it would require examining Catholic doctrine and sermon practices | Dismissed under ecclesiastical abstention; court cannot judge sermon content |
| Misrepresentation and invasion of privacy | Hullibarger: Father promised an uplifting homily and disclosed a private cause of death, invading privacy | Defendants: resolving these claims requires inquiry into sermon decision-making and doctrine; additionally, suicide is not a private fact giving rise to invasion-of-privacy claim | Misrepresentation and privacy claims barred by abstention; invasion claim also fails because suicide is not a protected private interest under common-law principles (no cognizable privacy interest) |
| Vicarious liability; negligent hiring, supervision, retention | Hullibarger: Archdiocese knew or should have known of priest's unfitness and is liable for its personnel choices | Defendants: clergy assignments and supervisory decisions are ecclesiastical polity immune from civil review; priest's actions are constitutionally protected so no derivative liability | Dismissed: personnel decisions are ecclesiastical (barred by abstention); further, no derivative liability where underlying act is constitutionally protected and complaint lacked sufficient parish-specific allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Winkler by Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc., 500 Mich 327 (establishing modern Michigan approach to ecclesiastical abstention)
- Swickard v. Wayne County Medical Examiner, 438 Mich 536 (adopting common-law rule that invasion-of-privacy claims generally lie only for living individuals and listing suicide as matter of public concern)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (ministerial selection and control are ecclesiastical and immune from government interference)
- Van Vliet v. Vander Naald, 290 Mich 365 (historic recognition that civil courts should not evaluate church doctrine or discipline)
- Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (sermons are part of religious services and courts lack competence to approve or disapprove them)