holding that it does not matter whether the factors relied upon by the church were independently ecclesiastical or *1129 not, for since they relate to a pastoral appointment decision they are automatically intertwined with religious doctrine
How later courts described this case
- holding that it does not matter whether the factors relied upon by the church were independently ecclesiastical or *1129 not, for since they relate to a pastoral appointment decision they are automatically intertwined with religious doctrine
- holding that it does not matter whether the factors relied upon by the church were independently ecclesiastical or not, for since they relate to a pastoral appointment decision they are automatically intertwined with religious doctrine
- explaining that the “neutral principles test ... permits a court to interpret provisions of religious documents involving property rights and other nondoctrinal matters as long as the analysis can be done in purely secular terms”
- vacating and remanding the district court's order dismissing a terminated pastor's breach of oral contract claim alleging that the church did not live up to its promise to provide the pastor with a better placement at the earliest possible time; the court noted that the parties disputed whether a contract even existed, which could be resolved without intruding upon religious doctrine, but recognized that if discovery showed that the pastor's claim required assessment of religious doctrine then summary judgment should be granted for the church, as "any inquiry into the Church's reasons for asserting that [plaintiff] was not suited for a particular pastorship would constitute an excessive entanglement in its affairs"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Dayner v. Archdiocese of Hartford, 301 Conn. 759 (2011)
We disagree with the plaintiffs reliance on the conclusions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, supra, 894 F.2d 1354, and the Third Circuit in Petruska v. Gannon University, supra, 462 F.3d 307, and Geary v. Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish School, 7 F.3d 324, 329 (3d Cir. 1993).
The opinion
GESELL, District Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result and respectfully note my concerns. The opinion deals comprehensively with a difficult case and an even more challenging problem. It seeks without benefit of a factual record to balance our deep-seated respect for First Amendment religious protection against the virus of discrimination based on age, *1362 sex, race and national origin which appears in every aspect of our society. General propositions are stated in a manner that may appear to lay down firm guidance for subsequent religious discrimination cases. In my opinion this is unnecessary. In the future there may well be some who seek to avoid scrutiny of a primary discriminatory objective in the selection or creation of religious officials by exploiting a marginal First Amendment religious claim. I believe the wiser course would be to allow the law to evolve in this difficult area case-by-case, aided, wherever necessary, by meaningful records developed on factual motions or trial. It is too early to anticipate whether some of the absolutes announced in the opinion will withstand the test of time or be considered appropriate under all circumstances.