641 F.3d 953
8th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Shane Perry, William Goebel, Matthew McCormick, and Angela Ohl-Marsters allege negligent hiring, retention and supervision by the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis regarding Rev. Robert Johnston's child sexual abuse.
- The district court held Gibson v. Brewer may be federal-question or state-law, and discussed Erie doctrine implications for applying Missouri law in a federal diversity context.
- Gibson purportedly based Missouri negligence doctrine on religious autonomy, potentially barring these negligence claims under First Amendment concerns.
- The district court performed its own First Amendment analysis, declining to adopt Gibson's reasoning, and granted interlocutory review to evaluate Erie implications.
- The panel considers whether Gibson controls the analysis under Erie or whether Missouri constitutional grounds (separation of church and state) foreclose the claims.
- The panel reverses and remands for dismissal of the negligence claims, and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Gibson control Erie analysis for these claims? | Gibson defines Missouri negligence law; Erie requires Missouri law. | Gibson presents substantive Missouri rule; district court may ignore due to First Amendment concerns. | Reversed; Erie-controlled or not, dismissal under Gibson is required. |
| If Gibson bears on whether First Amendment bars the claims, does Erie apply or foreclose? | Gibson answers the First Amendment question; Erie does not apply. | Erie applies; Missouri law should govern, potentially barring claims. | Erie applies; Missouri constitutional analysis may foreclose the claims. |
| Would the Missouri Constitution's separation of church and state bar the negligence claims even if First Amendment analysis is abrogated? | First Amendment bar is sufficient to bar claims; Missouri Const. not needed. | Missouri Const. offers broader protection; likely bars claims as state-law basis. | Likely barred under Missouri Constitution; district court should consider. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. 1997) (First Amendment concerns in clergy-hiring/retention claims; separation issues with church and state)
- Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (federal courts in diversity must apply state substantive law)
- Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1991) (Erie framework and application to state-substantive questions)
- Blankenship v. USA Truck, Inc., 601 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2010) (predicting state supreme court would rule in absence of clear precedent)
- Aftanase v. Econ. Baler Co., 343 F.2d 187 (8th Cir. 1965) ( Erie-educated approach to state-law questions)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (avoid constitutional questions unless necessary)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, 311 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (federal-state split on First Amendment impact on negligence claims)