The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that a church may be sued and held liable to a congregant arising from alleged wrongful conduct by its pastor when rendering secular counseling services. The Court rejected the church's contention that the constitutional prohibition on state entanglement in religious affairs barred the lawsuit. Thus, the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed to trial on his civil claims for money damages.
Although the case involves claims against a church, its holdings certainly apply to any religious institution as well as clergy of all faiths.
We have summarized the case below and provided recommendations to religious institutions for minimizing and managing the risk of such a claim.
Background Facts
These are the facts of the case set forth in the published opinion, Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, et al, Nos. C1-01-278, C4-01-291, slip op. (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2003).
The plaintiff in this case, Steven Odenthal ("Steven") and his ex-wife ("Diane") are Seventh-Day Adventists. They sought and received numerous sessions of marital counseling from their pastor, Lowell Rideout "("Rideout"). In the course of the marital counseling, Rideout and Diane allegedly became attracted to each other and later became romantically involved. They did not tell Steven, whom Rideout continued to counsel. Eventually, Rideout and Diane divorced their spouses and were married.
While the counseling was occurring, the president of the Adventists' Conference ("Carlson") received three anonymous letters complaining about the alleged inappropriate relationship between Rideout and Diane. Carlson did not investigate. Steven's mother also complained to Carlson. This caused Carlson to review Rideout's personnel file. The court noted that it contained a letter stating that, while Rideout had been the pastor at another church, a woman had accused him of sexual improprieties. Carlson spoke to Rideout, who described Diane as a special friend but denied having an inappropriate relationship.
Church policy required investigation of complaints involving sexual improprieties, including formation of a sexual ethics committee. Carlson did not invoke the policy, believing that he did not have enough information to proceed.
Ultimately, a group of church members met with Carlson to discuss their concerns about Rideout's alleged relationship with Diane. He learned that at least 10 people had met with Rideout regarding alleged inappropriate conduct with Diane. Carlson then confronted Rideout, and Rideout resigned.
Lawsuit
Steven sued the church for negligently employing Rideout, including claims of negligent supervision and retention of Rideout. He sued Rideout individually for negligent counseling, intentional infliction of emotional distress, clergy malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty. He alleged that the church was vicariously liable for the claims against Rideout.
Decision
The question before the Minnesota Court of Appeals was whether Steven could bring his claims in state court even though the constitution prohibits excessive state entanglement with religion. The court cited established legal principles. It observed that, even though the role of secular courts in resolving religious disputes is limited by the federal and state constitutions, the state may exert its authority if its action has a secular purpose, does not inhibit or advance religion in its primary effect, and does not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
The church argued that scripture governs discipline within the church, and that if a minister trespasses but repents, scripture requires forgiveness. However, the court noted that "Minnesota has long recognized that an employer has the duty to refrain from retaining employees with known dangerous proclivities." Since Steven's claims did not relate to Rideout's duties as a pastor, but in his role as a secular counselor, the court concluded that Steven was entitled to a trial on whether the church negligently retained Rideout without further investigation after it became aware or should have been aware of his alleged negligent secular counseling involving these and other congregants.
The court further observed that, "given the frequently vulnerable nature of those receiving mental health services, the state's interest in their safety and well-being is compelling." Here, the state is properly regulating only secular conduct, not the provision of spiritual advice or guidance by clergy members.
Further Proceedings
The church and Rideout may ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review this decision of the Court of Appeals. Review is discretionary. Unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, the holdings in the Adventists case states Minnesota law on the issue of church liability for the wrongful acts of a member of its clergy.
Recommendations
To minimize and manage the risk of a claim arising from the wrongful acts of the clergy, we recommend the following:
- Review existing insurance policies to determine the adequacy of coverage for claims arising from wrongful acts.
- Depending on the policy, a claim made today arising from actions in the past may not be covered by existing insurance. Thus, it is important to gather and safeguard old, expired insurance policies in the event they provide coverage for conduct during the old policy period that results in a claim in the future.
- Adopt express written policies that prohibit clergy from engaging in conduct that could lead to claims. Such conduct includes, for example, that such as Rideout's negligent counseling of Steven. It also includes conduct prohibited by Minnesota law, which creates liability for psychotherapists who have sexual contact with a patient or former patient. Such policies should include disciplinary action and procedures for investigating reports of clergy misconduct.
- Discuss the issue directly with the clergy so they understand policy, but also understand the risk to the institution and them if there is a violation.
- When hiring clergy who will provide psychotherapy services, comply with Minnesota law, which requires that an employer of a "psychotherapist" inquire of an employer or former employer of the psychotherapist within the last five years concerning the occurrence of sexual contacts by the psychotherapist with his/her patients/former patients.
- Determine whether national or other governing bodies of your faith have established other guidelines, directives, and the like pertaining to this issue.