27 Cal.App.5th 577
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Sarah Sumner was dean of Tozer Theological Seminary at Simpson University (a California nonprofit religious corporation affiliated with the Christian and Missionary Alliance) from 2010 until her termination in 2012.
- Sumner’s written employment contract included clergy-style tax/housing treatment, required affirmation of Simpson’s Statement of Faith, and listed seminary leadership, curriculum development, teaching, and promotion (including preaching) among duties.
- Sumner was first terminated in 2011, reinstated after a grievance process with agreed reinstatement terms (including back pay and protocols), and then terminated again in July 2012 for asserted insubordination (violation of protocols concerning group emails and acting beyond authority).
- Sumner sued for breach of contract, defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; defendants asserted the First Amendment ministerial exception as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on all claims; the Court of Appeal reversed as to the breach‑of‑contract claim and affirmed dismissal of the tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpson is a "religious organization" for ministerial‑exception purposes | Simpson is secular/loose affiliate with C&MA, moved toward secular mission | Simpson is a religious nonprofit formally affiliated with C&MA, requires faith commitments, religious curriculum and worship | Simpson is a religious organization |
| Whether Sumner is a "ministerial" employee | Sumner: role largely administrative, not a minister | Simpson: dean performed religious functions (teaching, spiritual formation, preaching), licensed by C&MA, clergy treatment in contract | Sumner qualifies as a ministerial employee |
| Whether ministerial exception bars Sumner’s breach of contract claim | Sumner: contract claim concerns secular process (insubordination, failure to follow protocols, breach of reinstatement terms) and can be decided on neutral principles | Simpson: allowing any contract suit would unconstitutionally entangle courts in ecclesiastical governance and undermine ministerial exception | Breach of contract claim survives; enforcing the contract does not necessarily require inquiry into doctrine or ministerial fitness and defendants failed to show excessive entanglement as a matter of law |
| Whether ministerial exception bars tort claims (defamation, invasion of privacy, IIED) | Sumner: alleged torts are ordinary civil wrongs and actionable | Simpson: alleged torts are "part and parcel" of the termination process and thus barred by the ministerial exception | Tort claims are barred because the alleged defamatory statements, privacy intrusions, and emotional‑distress acts were integrally connected to termination and would entangle courts in ecclesiastical administration |
Key Cases Cited
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171 (2012) (establishes the constitutional ministerial exception and its protection of religious institutions’ decisions about ministers)
- Schmoll v. Chapman Univ., 70 Cal.App.4th 1434 (1999) (applied ministerial exception to bar implied‑contract/termination claims involving ministers)
- Hope Int’l Univ. v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.4th 719 (2004) (discusses ministerial exception in the education/seminary context)
- Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (permits some contract claims to proceed where resolution does not require doctrinal inquiry)
- Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2006) (distinguishes discrimination claims barred by the exception from contract/fraud claims that may proceed absent excessive entanglement)
- Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 597 (Ky. 2014) (allows contract claims by seminary faculty where contract terms can be applied using neutral principles)
- Gunn v. Mariners Church, Inc., 167 Cal.App.4th 206 (2008) (bars defamation/privacy/IIED claims when statements/actions are part of clergy hiring/firing/discipline)
- Higgins v. Maher, 210 Cal.App.3d 1168 (1989) (tort claims arising from ecclesiastical administration are not judicially reviewable)