Professional Negligence Law Reporter

Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC, 2018 WL 6053307 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018).

A North Carolina appellate court held that the First Amendment did not preclude negligent supervision and emotional distress claims against a diocese.

Here, Doe, 14, sought counseling from and became acquainted with a seminary student who was retained by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte and its bishop to work with church youth. Subsequently, the seminary student allegedly raped Doe several times, including while he was staying in her home after leaving the seminary. As a result, Doe suffered emotional distress that manifested in anxiety and suicidal thoughts, among other problems.

Doe and her parents sued the diocese, the bishop, and Doe’s assailant, alleging negligent hiring and supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that the First Amendment prohibits civil courts from becoming entangled in ecclesiastical matters, specifically ones that require an examination of religious doctrine and practice. Citing case law, the court said that the dispositive issue is whether resolving a claim requires a court to weigh or interpret church doctrine. Where such interpretation is unnecessary, the court said, the First Amendment is not implicated, and the claim may be adjudicated using neutral legal theories.

Applying these principles here, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ negligent supervision claim isn’t barred by the First Amendment. Determining whether the diocese or its bishop knew or should have known of its seminary student’s alleged sexual interest in children and propensity for wrongdoing requires the application of neutral tort principles, the court found, adding that the Constitution does not prohibit applying a secular standard to secular tortious conduct. Similarly, the court held that because the plaintiffs’ emotional distress claim, which is premised on their negligent supervision claim, also can be decided by applying neutral legal principles, the trial court had not erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim.

However, the court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs’ negligent hiring claim was precluded. The plaintiffs alleged a lack of sufficient guidelines, the court said, which requires an examination of how the diocese educates its parishioners and what guidelines it decides to set, decisions that are inextricable from religious doctrine.

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Leto Copeley, Durham, N.C.; and Gregg Meyers, Charleston, S.C. 

Comment: In Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gallagher, 249 So. 3d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018), Father John Gallagher, a Catholic priest, filed suit against the Diocese of Palm Beach, alleging that the defendant had defamed him on social media and in newspaper articles, letters to parishioners, and press statements after he publicly accused the diocese and the Vatican of a lack of transparency regarding pedophiles and the policies and procedures related to them. The defendant moved to dismiss under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed, however, concluding that the plaintiff’s claims cannot be resolved without an excessive entanglement between the court and church policies and practices.

See also Orr v. Fourth Episcopal Dist. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 111 N.E.3d 181 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018), holding that the ecclesiastic abstention doctrine barred a pastor’s defamation action against a church and its leaders arising out of a sexual misconduct case.