2018 Ohio 4658
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Barry Turner, a long‑time ordained minister, worked at Tri‑County Baptist Church (TCBC) for 35+ years; Brian McManus became head pastor in 2011.
- McManus placed Turner on a Performance Growth Initiative, pressured him with an ultimatum (accept reduced part‑time pay or retire), and Turner accepted the part‑time role under protest.
- Turner was placed on administrative leave, told he could no longer work with McManus, and TCBC terminated his ministry on January 31, 2017.
- Turner provided 60 days’ notice of relinquishing his pastorate before termination; TCBC’s Constitution contains a provision that a pastor who gives 60 days’ written notice and is thereafter relieved shall receive two months’ salary.
- Turner sued for breach of contract (severance and unused vacation), defamation (statements by McManus harming reputation and calling), and age discrimination; the trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.
- The appellate majority affirmed dismissal, holding the breach‑of‑contract and defamation claims are inextricably intertwined with ecclesiastical matters; a dissent argued both claims were secular and cognizable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject‑matter jurisdiction over breach of contract claim based on TCBC Constitution severance clause | Turner: clause creates a secular contract right to two months’ pay and unused vacation; court can decide under neutral principles | TCBC/McManus: clause invokes ecclesiastical procedure (prayerful consideration, church relief), so adjudication would entangle courts in ecclesiastical matters | Court: No jurisdiction — breach claim is inextricably entangled with ecclesiastical concerns; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the court has subject‑matter jurisdiction over defamation claim about statements made in church settings | Turner: defamation is secular and does not require doctrinal review | McManus: statements concern reputation and calling within church governance; resolving truth/falsity would require reviewing subjective church judgments | Court: No jurisdiction — defamation claim involves ecclesiastical matters and is barred |
| Applicability of the "neutral principles" doctrine to employment/dispute over ministerial status | Turner: neutral principles permit civil adjudication of contract rights | Defendants: neutral principles apply to property disputes only; not to ministerial employment/government/discipline | Court: Neutral principles exception is inapplicable to ministerial/employment disputes; cannot be used here |
| Standard for ecclesiastical abstention analysis (hierarchical vs. congregational church) | Turner: not decisive; claims are secular even if congregational | Defendants: characterization affects scope; but if congregational, still ecclesiastical if issues are spiritual | Court: Because church type was unclear, assumed congregational and asked whether claims are ecclesiastical; found they were, so abstention applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871) (establishes ecclesiastical abstention from deciding purely religious disputes)
- Tibbs v. Kendrick, 93 Ohio App.3d 35 (1995) (two‑part test and analysis distinguishing ecclesiastical vs. secular disputes for ministerial controversies)
- Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N.A., 344 U.S. 94 (1952) (civil courts' limits on deciding who should preach from the pulpit under First and Fourteenth Amendments)
- Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979) (neutral principles doctrine applies to property disputes, not to internal governance/discipline)
- Hutchison v. Thomas, 789 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1986) (neutral principles limited to property cases; not extended to ministerial employment/discipline)
- State ex rel. Morrow v. Hill, 51 Ohio St.2d 74 (1977) (court may determine whether church is part of a hierarchical organization)
- Bhatti v. Singh, 148 Ohio App.3d 386 (2002) (Ohio appellate courts' application of ecclesiastical abstention two‑part framework)