2022 Ohio 4695
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Kevin Tharp sued Hillcrest Baptist Church and Pastor Timothy Lee alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, clergy malpractice, and previously sought declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty; some claims were dismissed earlier and Tharp refiled in 2021.
- The factual core: after a congregant identified Tharp as having sexually abused him as a teen, Pastor Lee privately questioned Tharp, who admitted touching minors; Lee then convened a church meeting and communicated to church leadership and parents that he had consulted professionals who described Tharp as having an “incurable disease” and engaging in “grooming.”
- The church Vision Team voted to remove Tharp from leadership and membership; Tharp challenged the process and communications in court.
- The trial court dismissed the claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty under the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine and later granted summary judgment to appellees on the remaining tort claims.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held the church-membership and procedure disputes required ecclesiastical inquiry beyond neutral principles, and that communications about Tharp were protected by qualified privilege (no clear-and-convincing evidence of actual malice) and otherwise failed as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had jurisdiction over claims challenging removal from membership and governance (ecclesiastical abstention) | Tharp argued the church failed to follow its bylaws and sought declaratory relief enforcing internal procedures | Church argued membership, discipline, and interpretation of bylaws are ecclesiastical matters beyond secular review | Court: Abstention applies; lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over declaratory, breach-of-contract, and fiduciary-duty claims |
| Whether statements at church meeting were defamatory / false-light | Tharp: Statements that professionals said he had an "incurable disease" and was "grooming" were false and defamatory | Church: Statements were made to protect children, were matters of common interest, and are entitled to qualified privilege; also truth/opinion defenses | Court: Qualified privilege applies; no clear-and-convincing proof of actual malice; defamation/false-light claims fail |
| Whether invasion of privacy / breach of confidentiality / negligence claims survive | Tharp: Disclosure was publicizing private facts and breached confidences (he only spoke after being told Lee would inform others) | Church: Communications were limited to concerned congregants/parents and stemmed from protective duty; no clergy-penitent confidentiality here; mandatory-reporting duties may apply | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; communications were of legitimate concern to congregation; confidentiality/penitent-privilege not shown; negligence claim fails |
| Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress and clergy malpractice survive | Tharp: Statements (e.g., "incurable disease") were intended to humiliate and caused severe distress; clergy malpractice claims asserted negligent clergy conduct | Church: Conduct occurred in disciplinary/protective context and is privileged; alleged misconduct fits traditional tort categories (not a distinct clergy-malpractice basis) | Court: Conduct not extreme/outrageous as matter of law; privilege bars claim; clergy-malpractice claim redundant and fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (establishes foundational ecclesiastical-abstention principles)
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (sets false-light invasion of privacy standard)
- A & B–Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (defamation elements and definition)
- Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (qualified-privilege framework for communications)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (reckless-disregard standard for actual malice)
- McCartney v. Oblates of St. Francis deSales, 80 Ohio App.3d 345 (application of qualified privilege in church-related defamation context)