Sumner v. Simpson Univ.
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Sarah Sumner was dean of A.W. Tozer Theological Seminary at Simpson University and had a written employment contract that treated her, for some tax/benefit purposes, as clergy and required affirmation of the school's Statement of Faith.
- Simpson University is a nonprofit, religiously affiliated university (Christian & Missionary Alliance), operates a seminary with explicitly religious curriculum, and requires employees to affirm Christian doctrine.
- Sumner taught seminary courses, held a license with the C&MA, had authority over seminary curriculum and hiring, and performed religious leadership functions.
- Sumner was terminated (second time) for alleged insubordination after disputes about communicating proposals and post‑reinstatement emails; she alleged defendants breached the employment contract and committed defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment invoking the ministerial exception under the First Amendment; the trial court granted summary judgment on all claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpson University is a "religious organization" for ministerial‑exception purposes | Impliedly conceded Simpson is religious but argued affiliation/evidence disputed | Simpson: clearly a religious institution affiliated with C&MA | Held: Simpson is a religious organization |
| Whether Sumner qualifies as a "minister" under the exception | Sumner argued she was not a ministerial employee | Defendants argued dean duties and licensing make her ministerial | Held: Sumner was a ministerial employee |
| Whether the ministerial exception bars Sumner's breach of contract claim | Sumner: contract enforcement does not require ecclesiastical inquiry; exception should not bar contract claims | Defendants: exception precludes judicial scrutiny of employment disputes including contract claims | Held: Breach of contract claim is not barred; resolution does not necessarily entail excessive entanglement or doctrinal inquiry |
| Whether the ministerial exception bars Sumner's tort claims (defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress) | Sumner: torts are civil wrongs independent of ecclesiastical function | Defendants: alleged torts were part and parcel of the termination process and would entangle courts in internal church governance | Held: Tort claims are barred as they are inseparable from the termination process and would impermissibly entangle the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (U.S. 2012) (recognizes constitutional ministerial exception to employment‑discrimination laws)
- Schmoll v. Chapman University, 70 Cal.App.4th 1434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (applies ministerial exception to bar inquiry into a school’s reasons for cutting a minister’s hours)
- Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2006) (ministerial exception barred discrimination claims but not necessarily contract or tort claims absent excessive entanglement)
- Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (courts may enforce secular contract promises by churches when resolution does not require doctrinal inquiry)
- Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 597 (Ky. 2014) (breach of contract claims by seminary faculty can proceed if resolution requires only neutral principles and no ecclesiastical inquiry)
- Gunn v. Mariners Church, Inc., 167 Cal.App.4th 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (defamation/privacy claims relating to clergy termination can be barred when part of ecclesiastical administration)
- Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal.App.3d 1168 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (tort claims arising from removal of priest were barred as inseparable from ecclesiastical functions)