The Michigan Court of Appeals recently vacated a ruling of a trial court that granted summary judgment in favor of a local church that had been sued by an employee for age discrimination. The trial court had refused to hear the case based on its understanding of the First Amendment and its interplay with employment in religious institutions; however, the appellate court ordered the trial court to hear the case and apply the law consistent with Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit.

Winkler explains the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine:

The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine arises from the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and reflects this Court's longstanding recognition that it would be inconsistent with complete and untrammeled religious liberty for civil courts to enter into a consideration of church doctrine or church discipline, to inquire into the regularity of the proceedings to church tribunals having cognizance of such matters, or to determine whether a resolution was passed in accordance with the canon law of the church, except insofar as it may be necessary to do so, in determining whether or not it was the church that acted therein. Accordingly, we have consistently held that the court may not substitute its opinion in lieu of that of the authorized tribunals of the church in ecclesiastical matters, and that judicial interference in the purely ecclesiastical matters of religious organizations is improper. 

Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc., 500 Mich 327, 337-338 (2017) (quotation marks, citations, brackets, and footnote omitted).

However, as Winkler explained, courts are not completely restricted from adjudicating matters involving churches and religious institutions; but from adjudicating claims involving ecclesiastical questions. When a charge is brought against a religious entity, the question is whether the court can resolve the matter without resolving ecclesiastical questions. In this case, the appellate court found that the lower court could determine whether the church discriminated against the plaintiff based on her age without any inquiry into faith, doctrine, or governance of the church. A key issue, in this case, is that the employee was not a minister or pastor, but the church’s “business manager.” Had the plaintiff been a minister or performed ministerial function in her role as an employee, it is likely the court would have held differently because a church’s right to choose its own clergy is at the root of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Key Application     

While courts are likely precluded by the First Amendment from hearing employment lawsuits brought by clergy against churches for termination and other employment issues by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, such suits brought by non-ministerial employees may be heard if there is no need for the court inquire into faith and doctrine.

As a result, churches should exercise care in all employment decisions, realizing that the First Amendment is not a complete shield to lawsuits by employees.

For information on how Reynolds Law Group, PLLC can help your church or nonprofit negotiate employee issues, please email assistant@reynoldslawgroup.com or call 757.219.2500.

For last week’s legal update concerning Religion Based Prohibition click here.