Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Snoopy]

I am just finishing up a research paper about economic crime involving churches.  The Supreme Court has recently determined that a church is exempt from discrimination laws.  But is a church exempt from other laws as well?  What about breach of contract or unfair employment practices (other than discrimination)?  Or defamation?  Should a church be held accountable?

Any brilliant ideas or comments could still make it into my paper...!!

[Gregory]

Snoopy:

Your questions are valid and important.  In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, there is some uncertainty.  Alothough some would disagree with that comment.

Ongoing LSU litigation is likely to claim "breach of contract" and the Church is likely to claim that it is exempt as LSU is a teaching institution for a denomination.  I think think that the court is likely to give some preceedence to the idea that LSU is a teaching insistiution for a denominaiton.

In the Mery Kay Silver Case the court ruled that EO law appllied to Pacific Press.  I think that the future for denominational publishing such as Pacific Press is uncertain.

In the Odenthal case, the State Supreme Court reuled that the denomination could be held liable if it was determilned that the denomination had failed to supervise its pastor.  This is a case that was settled prior to a determination whether or not the church had failed to supervise.  On the surface, it is a narrow case that does not establish wide precedent.  However, it has been my posiiton for years, presently unrealized, that the Odenthal case could become the basis for other rullings in the same sense that the Tarasoff ruling of the California Supreme Court became that basis  of law in just about all of the United States.   

The position of the General Conference is that the recent Supreme Court ruling was a major support for religious liberty.   I agree on one level with that.  However, I believe that there are some situaitons that are not presently covered by this rulilng.  Inmy opinion, it remains to be seenwhast the future hlds.

[Stan]

In the Mery Kay Silver Case the court ruled that EO law appllied to Pacific Press.  I think that the future for denominational publishing such as Pacific Press is uncertain.

That never went to court. (Other than in her book)

I support the principal of EO, the opinion of those involved have said her book was not as truthful in many areas as she claimed.

[Gregory]

Stan:

The following is a brief citation from the United State Court of Appeals.  Please note that the U. S. District court had already heard the case.  With this decision, the Mary Kay case had been heard in two (2) Federal courts.

676 F.2d 1272
 
28 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1596,
29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,817
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant.
 
No. 80-4189.
 
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
 
Argued and Submitted Oct. 13, 1981.
Decided May 10, 1982.
 

Malcolm T. Dungan, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for defendant-appellant; James H. Quirk, Melinda S. Collins, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.
 
Colleen O'Connor, E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
 
Before TRASK and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and HILL,* District Judge.
 
TRASK, Circuit Judge:
 
1
 
* This is an appeal from the district court's holding that Pacific Press Publishing Association ("Press"), a nonprofit religious publishing house, violated section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) (1976),1 by denying Lorna Tobler monetary allowances paid to similarly situated male employees. Press also was held in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) (1976),2 for terminating Tobler's employment in retaliation for her filing charges and participating in proceedings under the Act. Because Congress clearly intended to protect employees of religious institutions under Title VII, and because the enforcement of Title VII does not infringe religious freedom under the facts of the present case, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Stan, perhaps her book was more accurate than you had understood.

Gregory Matthews

[Stan]

I believe it was settled out of court.

[Stan]

There was a little book published by some of the people involved as a rebuttal to some of the things she said..

BUT that statement does say

Argued and Submitted Oct. 13, 1981.
Decided May 10, 1982.
 

Maybe the amount was settle out of court.

[Gregory]

Stan:

There was more than one lawsulit that involved Merikay against the Pacific Prerss.

Here is a Spectrum article that talks about one of the lawsuits:

http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/8-1dybdahl2.pdf

Your statement that it never went to court was simply wrong.  Some of the litigation, as I have shown, resulted in a decision by a Federal  court.  My references cites two such decisions.

Please note, that under U.S. law there is more than one type of court.  Adminostrative law judges make decisions in Federal administrative courts. Their decisions are binding to the extent granted by the statute that established them.

As I said, there was more than one lawsuit by Merikay against the Pacific Press.  The decisions related to those lawsuits differ.  Do not apply the decision in one to another.

The  Internet is well supplied to references to the Merikay cases.  Either you or Snoopy can sort them out if desired.  There are articles posted on the Internet that attempt to expalin them.  They take different approaches.

If you want to do so, you can "shapherd" any of the cases. That should give you an accurate picture of what happened.

But, anyone who would pubish a book stating that the Merikay case never went to court is simply wrong.  More than one Federal Court heard a Merikay v. Pacific Press case.  NOTE:  Some cases were titled differently.  Some had Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the title.  Some had Lorna Tobler along with Merikay in the title.

[Gregory]

In the folloowing quote, Stan made an important point to which I will respond:

I support the principal of EO, the opinion of those involved have said her book was not as truthful in many areas as she claimed.

The Merikay case was a complex case in which each of the parties to the litigation had partial knowledge and none of them had the entire view of everything that happened.  In addition, as humans, all parties, with the passage of time, became dependent upon faulty memory.   From this perspective, the perceptions of all parties is subject both truth and error.

The attornies attached to the case, due to requirements to keep confidential certain information, can only provide partial information.  Parties on each side lack information as to what is going on with the other side.  They can speculate.  They can base  opinions on what is presented in court, but all of that is partial truth.  The book that Merikay wrote, which I have, but have not read in years, only presents a partial truth as is the situation with those on the other side.  The total truth is probably greater than the sum of the declarations of each side as neither is able to reveal everyting or knows all.

This is true about much in human life that is complex.  It is certainly true in reagrd to the issues related to Linda, Danny and 3-ABN.  I have been, and remain a supporter of Linda and I remain fixed on the position that 3-ABN did not treat her right in a number of ways.  But, neither side in this mess is 100% wrong and neither side is 100% right.   All parties, of which we are aware, to this saga are human.  And humans are never perfect.

I clearly believe that Dr. Walter Thompson made errors in decisions that he made.  But, I do not believe that he had malice in making those decisions.  He is not the demon that some would make him out to be.  In fact, he is a dedicated man who has devoted his life to the Church that he believes in and in working for his Lord.  But, he is also wrong in some of the decisions that he has made.  Linda is not the person that she is presented by some to be.  And, I will even say that Danny is not guilty of everything that has been attributed to him.  In my opinion, the suporters of both sides in this mess have falsely accused the other side of wrong, neither side has been perfect.

I have taken a lot of flack for this position.  I post here and am accused of sitting on the fence and having splinters in my rear from sliding up and down the fence and not taking a clear position.        I also post on 3-atalk and people there are just as frustrated with me and and accuse me of the same.  So, be it.  I will live with that.   The reality is that in complex situations like this with 3-ABN and the Merikay case no one has the total picture and no one is 100% correct, to include me.

But, I think that God sometimes calls people to take positions and not to wait until they are 100% correct.  I do that.  Sometimes I am wrong and sometimes I am right.
 

[Snoopy]

Snoopy:

Your questions are valid and important.  In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, there is some uncertainty.  Alothough some would disagree with that comment.

Ongoing LSU litigation is likely to claim "breach of contract" and the Church is likely to claim that it is exempt as LSU is a teaching institution for a denomination.  I think think that the court is likely to give some preceedence to the idea that LSU is a teaching insistiution for a denominaiton.

So are you saying that if LSU is determined to be a teaching institution for a denomination it voids their breach of contract claim?

When is a church held accountable?

[Gregory]

Snoopy:

Maybe?

In view of the present Supreme Court, I am uncertain of the answer.

It might?

Gregory Matthews

[Gregory]

The bottom line is:  Churches have limited liability.  Over the years, U.S. Courts have carved out breaches in the liability wall that has historically protected churches.  There was a time when that wall of protection was considered to be absolute.  Gradually, over time breaches have been made in that wall, and now churches may have some liabality.  E.G.  A church may have liability in a "slip & fall" case.

My view of the present Suppreme Court leaves me uncertain as to how it would rule in the case of a "breach of contract" lawsuit against LSU by the present biology faculty.  However, being specific, I personally believe that the specifics of the biology case are such that a breach of contract case is less likely to succeed than some other cases.  However, I do not know and I am not an expert.
 

[Murcielago]

It would be wise for all churches and "non-profits" to remember that Al Capone was brought down by the IRS, and not by the Justice Department.