Religious Institutions: October 2014

Nathan A. "Nate" Adams IV is a Partner in our Tallahassee office.

Timely Topics

Church splits and property disputes are not new, but they have certainly grown in number in recent years. In the seminal case on church property disputes, Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether the pro-slavery or anti-slavery faction of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky, "owned" the church. Church splits today occur over different theological issues, but the process is perhaps as painful. The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia reported losing congregations that collectively contributed $10.4 million to the diocese in the 20-year period before the dispute erupted. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/episcopal-church-virginia-ruling_n_1199629.html. Some congregants never return to church.

In addition, denominations and churches are spending millions in legal fees in today's cases. One analyst reported that through 2009, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America had spent $40 million on attorneys' fees and costs associated with the (then) 60 plus lawsuits in which it was involved. http://anglicanink.com/article/40-million-legal-expenses-episcopal-church. The breakaway churches, such as Falls Church Anglican Church, are also spending a hefty amount on legal fees. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120303065.html. Case settlement values are also substantial. Grace Presbytery, the regional governing body of the Presbyterian Church (USA) reported settling its dispute with Highland Park Presbyterian Church for $7.8 million. The value of the property at issue ranged from $70 million to $120 million. http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/09/highland-park-presbyterian-church-reaches-property-litigation-settlement.html/

Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans have all been affected recently by schism, and now there is talk of it in the United Methodist Church. Denominations and churches can learn several lessons from the litigation of the past 20 years not fully reflected in their governing documents, which those considering lawsuits should evaluate well in advance of litigation. Church counsel can assist with pre-litigation and litigation planning, as well as those looking for an alternative path through alternative dispute resolution and modifications to bylaws designed to eliminate ambiguity about property ownership.

No First Amendment Violation to Require Residential Facility to Accompany Client to Religious Services

In Williams v. State of Cal., No. 12-55601, 2014 WL 4090545 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014), the court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint alleging that defendants violated the plaintiff's First Amendment right to freedom of religion by forcing them, consistent with California's Lanternman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (the Act), to provide direct staff support to a developmentally disabled client who wished to attend Jehovah's Witness services. The Act grants the developmentally disabled the right to religious freedom and practice, the right to attend religious services or to refuse attendance, and the right to participate in worship or not to participate in worship. Plaintiffs, residential community care facilities that are licensed by the state to serve as vendors under the Act, argued that the Act requires them merely to provide an opportunity to attend Jehovah's Witness worship services through drop-off and pick-up, rather than to accompany them to the religious services. The regional center disagreed, cited the plaintiffs, and, as a result, the plaintiffs could no longer receive client referrals. The court ruled that the regulations requiring accompaniment are neutral because their object is to allow developmentally disabled persons to approximate the lives of nondisabled persons – not to infringe upon practices because of their religious motivation and because the laws serve to accommodate the rights of developmentally disabled persons to free exercise of religion. The court also found the regulations generally applicable because they apply to all vendors, irrespective of their religion. Finally, the court ruled that the regulations are rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. The plaintiffs alleged that two of its employees are Catholic and cannot attend any other religious service, however, the court ruled this an inadequate basis for a free exercise violation. Once more, the court ruled the Act and regulations have a secular purpose, the primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religion and they do not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts supporting a plausible inference of unlawful retaliation under the First Amendment or violation of Title VII.

Order...