# F I L E D Jul y 15, 1998 C eci l W . C r o w son A ppel l a t e C our t C l e r k 

### I N TH E CO U RT O F APPEALS O F TENN ESSEE

AT NAS HVI L L E

M A R K S . T I DMAN a n d ) E V E L YN J . T I DMAN, ) ) P l a i n t i f f s / A ppel l ant s , )

) A ppeal N o . ) 01-A -01- 9708-C V -00380 VS. ) ) D avi dson Ci r cui t ) N o . 97C - 176 THE S A L VATI O N ARM Y , ) J AMES R. W ORT HY, BE R T H A ) W ORTHY, KENNETH E. BREW ER, ) F R E D R U T H , ) ) D e f endant s /

A ppel l ees. ) A P P E A L E D F ROM THE CI R C U I T COUR T OF DA V I D S ON COUNT Y

AT N ASH V I L L E , TEN N ESSEE T H E HONORA B L E W A L T E R C . KURT Z , J UDGE

L ARRY L . CRAI N 101 W est par k D r i ve, Sui t e 250 B r ent w ood, Tennessee 37027 A t t o r ney f

o rPl a i n t i f

f s / A ppel l ant s L . GI N O M ARCHETT I , J R . W I L L I A M G. M CCASKI L L , J R . T A Y L OR, P H I L B I N , P I GUE , M A R CHE T T I & B E N N E T T , PLLC O ne U n i on St r eet P . O . B ox 198169 N ashv i l l e , Tennessee 37219- 8169 A t t o r neys f

o rD e f endant s /

A ppel l ees- 2 - A F F I R M ED AND RE M ANDED

B E N H. CA N T R E L L , J UDGE CONCU R : T O D D , P . J ., M . S . C A I N , J . 

## O P I N I O N

T w o f o r m e rSal vat i on A r m y of fi cer s , a husband and w i f e w ho had been dem o t ed and di scharged, sued t hei rsuperi o rof fi cer s and The Sal vat i on A r m y i t sel f f o ri nvas i on of

pr i vacy , i n t ent i onal i n flic t i o n of

em o t i onal di s t r ess , negl i gent i n fl i c t i on of em o t i onal d i s t r ess, and out r ageous con d uct . The C i r cui t C our t of D avi dson C ount y di s m i s s ed t he com p l a i n tf o rf a i l u r e t o sta t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f

can be gr ant ed. W e af fi r m , and hol d , i n addi t i on, t hatt h e def endant s ’act i ons we r e pr o t ect ed by t he F i r s t A m endm entt o t h e U n i t ed St a t es Const i t u t i on.

I .

The pl a i n t i f

f s , M a r k and Evel yn T i d m an, w e r e com m i s s i o n e d as l i eut enant s i n The Sal vat i on A r m y ’ s Sout her n T e rri t o r y . A ft e rser v i ng atcom m uni t y cente r s i n B i r m i ngham and- 3 -

Sel m a , A l abam a , t he Ti d m ans we r e t r ansf e r r ed t o N ashv i l l e underth e com m and of

M a j o rJam es Wo r t hy and hi s w i f e , M a j o rB e r t h a W o rth y . The f o l l o w i ng f

act s are al l eged i n t he com p l a i n t . W e r eci t e t hem as i f

t hey we r e t r ue, as we ar e com pel l ed t o do i n r u l i n g o n t he m o t i o n t o d i s m i ss. C o r npr opst v. Sl oan , 528 S. W . 2d 188 (Tenn. 1975) . W e hasten t o add, how ever, t hatt hey are onl y al l egat i ons.

P r i o rt o com i ng t o N ashv i l l e , M r . Ti d m an had s o u ghtand r ecei ved per m i s s i on t o at t end out s i d e counsel i ng f o ra per sonal p r obl e m , underThe Sal vat i o n A r m y ’ s m edi cal coverage. Shor t l y af t e r a rri v i n g i n N ashv i l l e , M r s . Ti d m an w a s appr oached by Ber t ha W o r t h y r egar d i n g a r u m o raboutM r . Ti d m an. M r s . W o r t h y ass u r ed M r s . T i d m a n t hatshe was act i ng as M r s . T i d m an’ s pas t o rand t hatt h e det a i l s di scus sed “ w oul d notl eave t he r oom . ” R e l y i ng on t h ese ass u r ances, M r s . Ti d m an confi ded t o M r s . W o r t hy t hatherhu sband had conf

ess ed once t o havi ng an ext r a m a r i t a l af f a i r . M r s . W o rth y t hen r ecom m ended t hatt he Ti d m ans m eetw i t h herand herhusband t h e nextday. D u r i ng t h i s m eet i ng, M a j o rJam es Wo r t h y ass u r ed t h e T i d m ans t hatt hey w e r e speaki ng confi dent i a l l y and t hathe w a s act i n g i n a pasto r a l capaci t y . H o w ever, M r . W o r t h y bera t e d and i n t e r r ogat e d M a r k Ti d m an i n an accusato r y m anner ; he dem anded a conf ess i o n aboutth e af f a i rfr o m M a r k Ti d m an; and he sta t ed t he onl y w a y f o rM r . Ti d m an t o sav e f ace w as to r esi gn. M r . Ti d m an r e fused- 4 -

t o conf ess , answe r i ng onl y t h a the had t o l d hi s w i f e ever y t h i ng she n eeded t o know and t hatt hey w e r e com m i t t ed t o m a r r i a g e counsel i ng.

A taboutt he sam e t i m e , Edw a r d Lai t y , T he Sal vat i o n A r m y ’ s Ter r i t o r i a l C ounsel o ri n A t l ant a , c ont act ed M r . Ti d m an’ s out s i d e counsel o r , seeki ng t o di scov e rt he det a i l s of t h e counsel i n g sessi o n s .

I n N ovem b e rof 1995, K ennet h B r e w e r , The Sal vat i o n A r m y ’ s D i v i s i onal C o m m ander , t o l d M r s . Ti d m an’ s f a t herof

t he r u m o r t h a t Ma r k Ti d m an w as engaged i n an ongoi ng af f a i r . M r s . Ti d m an’ s f a t herconfr ont ed M r s . T i d m an aboutt he al l egat i on. M r . B r e w e r ’ s m o t i vat i o n w as al l egedl y to cause a ri ft i n t h e Ti d m an f a m i l y , t o i n flic tsev e r e em o t i onal i n j u r y on M a r k Ti d m an, and t o cause hi m t o r esi gn.

I n January of 1996, Fr ed R u t h , t he D i r ect o r o f Per sonnel f o rThe Sal vat i on A r m y , sum m oned t he pl a i n t i f f s to a m eet i n g in N a shvi l l e , by f

a l sel y repr esent i ng t o t hem t hatt he pur pose of t h e m eet i n g w as a personnel i n t e rv i e w . I nstead, t he Ti d m ans w e r e confr ont e d by M r . R u t h , M a j o rB r e w e r , and M a j o rJam es Wo r t hy, w ho, agai n , tri e d to coer ce M r . Ti d m an i n t o conf ess i ng hi s i n fi del i t y . I n t h e- 5 -

m eet i ng, Mr . R u t h r eveal ed t hathe had l ear ned of M r . Ti d m an’ s past h i s to r y of

pasto r a l counsel i ng fr o m M r . Lai t y .

M r . and M r s . T i d m an w e r e l a t e rdi s m i s s ed fr o m t hei r posi t i ons i n The Sal vat i on A r m y and we r e to l d t o vacate t hei rl i v i n g quar t e r s i n t w o days . M r . R u t h di scl osed to M r s . Ti d m an’ s f a t hert h e det a i l s of

t he January m eet i ng.

II.

The Ti d m ans s ued Jam es and Ber t ha W o r t h y , K ennet h B r e w e r , and Fr ed R u t h f o ri nvas i on of

pr i vacy , i n t ent i o nal and negl i genti n fl i c t i on of em o t i onal di s t r ess and out r ageous conduct. They n a m ed The Sal vat i on A r m y i t sel f on t he t heory of

r espondeat superi o r . The def endant s f

i l ed a m o t i on underTenn. R . C i v . P. 12 t o d i s m i s s t he act i on because (1 ) t he def endant s ’act i ons w e r e p r o t ect e d by t he Fi r s t and Four t eent h A m endm ent s t o t he U n i t e d S t a t e s C onst i t u t i on and ( 2 ) t he com p l a i n tf a i l ed t o sta t e a cl a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f

coul d be gr ant ed. The t r i a l j udge, i n a w r i t t en opi n i on, hel d t hatt he f

act ual r ecor d w oul d notsupport a concl usi on t hatt h e r e l i g i ous fr eedom cl auses of t he U n i t e d S t a t e s C o nst i t u t i on pr o t ect e d- 6-

t h e def endant s . B u tt he t r i a l j udge di d hol d t hatt he com p l a i n tf a i l e d t o sta t e a cl a i m underany of t he t heor i es adv anced by the pl a i n t i f f s .

III. I nvas i on of

Pr i vacy

A l t hough th e Tennessee cour t s earl i e rr ecogni z ed t h e to r t o f i nvas i on of

pr i vacy , M a rti n v. Senat o r s , I nc. , 418 S. W . 2d 660 (Tenn. 1967) , t h i s courtm o r e r e c ent l y a dopt ed Sec. 652A of t h e R esta t e m ent(Second) of Tor t s as t h e basi s f o rt h e act i on. M a j o rv. C har t e rLakesi de H osp. , Shel by LawN o . 42, fi l ed atJackson, A ug. 31, 1990. The Ti d m ans as sert on appeal t hatt hei rcase f a l l s w i t h i n t w o o f t he R esta t e m ent ’ s cat egor i es: ( 1 ) t he publ i c di scl osure of pr i vate i n f o r m a t i o n (Sec. 652D ) , and ( 2 ) an unr easonabl e i n t r usi o n upon t h e secl usi on of

anot her(Sec. 652B ) . The key to t he fi r s t cat egory i s t he w o r d “ publ i c . ” I n M a j o r , w e sai d t hatt he R esta t e m entr equi r e d a di scl osure t o t h e publ i c atl a r ge ort o so m any p e r sons t hatt he m a t t e rm ust be r egar ded as s ubstant i a l l y cert a i n t o becom e one of p ubl i c know l edge. M a j o r , sl i p op. at* 9 . See al so Bear d v. A k z ona , 51 7 F . Sup p . 12 8 (E . D . Tenn. 1981) .- 7 - The com p l a i n t d o es not al l ege t hatany pri vate i n f o r m a t i o n w a s di scl osed to anyone outs i de The Sal vat i on A r m y com m and exceptM r s . Ti d m an’ s fa t h e r (w h o w as hi m sel f a f o r m e rof

fi ceri n The Sal vat i o n A r m y ) . Ther e f o r e , t he com p l a i n tdoes not sta t e a cause of act i on underSect i on 652( D ) .

A s t o t he unr easonabl e i n t r usi on cat egory de scr i b e d i n Sect i o n 652( B ) , t he Ti d m ans argue on a ppeal t hatt he def endant s

“ i n t r uded i n t o t hei rper sonal and f a m i l y s o l i t ude undert he gui se of pasto r a l counsel i ng w hen t hei rt r ue m o t i ve w as to i n fl i c tem o t i onal suf f e r i ng. ” We have read t he com p l a i n tand cannotfi nd t he f act s on w h i c h th i s concl usi on coul d be based. The com p l a i n tdoes s t a t e t hat M r . Lai t y adv i sed M r s . T i d m an t hatshe woul d be ass i gned t o a new l ocat i o n i f

she deci ded t o l eave her husband. B u t , t he com p l a i n tdoes notal l ege t hatt he def endant s t r i ed t o separa t e t he Ti d m ans, ort hat t h e def endant s s e touton a del i ber a t e quest t o di scov e rt he i n t i m a t e det a i l s of

t he Ti d m ans’m a r r i age f o rno of

fi c i a l pur pose. The i n f o r m a t i o n sought

by t he def

endant s r e l a t ed t o a f actt hataf

f ect e d M r . Ti d m an’ s abi l i t y to ser ve ef f ect i vel y as an of

fi ceri n The Sal vat i o n A r m y , a nd al l t he al l eged i nqui r i es took pl ace atw o r k , w i t h i n t h e o f fi c i a l ci r c l e t hathad t o m ake t hatdet e r m i nat i on.

Thi s case i s di f

f e r ent fr o m H este rv. B a r net t , 723 S. W . 2 d 544 (M o . A p p . 1987) w her e t he com p l a i n tal l eged t hatt he H este r ’ s- 8-

pasto r“ gai ned accesst o t he H este rhom e t h r ough t he p r e t ense as counsel o rt o a ssi s ti n t h e cor r ect i on of t he chi l d r en’ s behav i o r , w hen t h e t r ue m o t i ve w as to har m t he H este r s by t he di scl osure of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n obt a i ned t h r o u g h gui l e . ” 723 S. W . 2d at563. That a l l egat i on, t aken as tr ue, w as cons i d e r ed by t he cour t as s u f fi c i ent t o sat i s f

y t he t h r ee el e m ent s of a t o r t of

i nvas i on of

pr i vacy : ( 1 ) t h e exi s tence of

a secre tand pr i vate subj ectm a t t e r ; ( 2 ) a r i g h ti n t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o keep t hatsubj ectm a t t e rpr i vate ; and ( 3 ) t he obt a i n m ent b y t he def

endantof

i n f o r m a t i on aboutt he subj ectm a t t e rt h r ough unr easonabl e m eans. 723 S. W . 2d at562.

Fort he r easons sta t ed ab o v e , w e do nott h i nk t h e a l l egat i ons i n t he com p l a i n tsat i s f y anyof

t hese el e m ent s . A Sal vat i o n A r m y of

fi cer ’ s cl a i m t hathe has a ri ghtt o keep hi s conduct secre tm ust

have a v e r y l i m i t e d scope w hen t hatconductaf f ect s hi s a b ilit y to s e rve hi s re l i g i ous em p l oyer . W e w i l l addr ess i n anot her p a rt o f th i s opi n i on t he cl a i m t hatt he def endantused unr easonabl e m e t hods to obt a i n t h i s al l eged pr i vate i n f o r m a t i on.

I V . I n fl i c t i on of

Em o t i onal D i s t r ess / O u t r ageous Conduct

A l t hough th e com p l a i n tcont a i ns a cl a i m f o rnegl i gent i n flic t i o n of

em o t i onal di s t r ess , a ll o f t he m a t e r i a l al l egat i ons i nvol v e- 9-

t h e i n t ent i onal , del i ber a t e act s of t he def

endant s . The r e f o r e , w e concl ude, as t he t r i a l cour t di d , t hatt he com p l a i n tdoes not sta t e a c l a i m f o rnegl i gence.

The i n t ent i onal i n fl i c t i on of em o t i onal di s t r ess and out r ageous conductdescri be t he s a m e t o r t . B a i n v . W e lls , 936 S . W . 2 d 618 n. 3 (Tenn. 1997) . The el e m ent s of t he t o r t ar e : ( 1 ) t h e conductcom p l a i ned of m ust be i n t ent i o nal or r eckl ess ; ( 2 ) t h e condu c t m ust

be so outr ageous t hati t i s not t o l e r a t ed by ci v i l i z e d soci e t y ; and ( 3 ) t he co nduct co m p l a i ned of m ust r esul t i n seri ous m ent a l in j u r y . I d . at622. The defendant ’ s conduct m ust be so ext r e m e i n degr e e as to go beyond al l bounds of decency. M edl i n v. A llie d I nves t m entC o . , 398 S. W . 2d 270 (Tenn. 1966) . The cour t ’ s duty i n t he fi r s t

i nstance i s to ap p l y t hese s t andar ds and to det e r m i n e

“ w het hert he def

endant ’ s conduct

m ay reasonabl y be regar ded as s o ext r e m e and out r ageous ast o per m i t r ecover y . . . . ” I d . at275.

Fort he r easons w e have al r eady di scus sed, w e ar e of t h e opi n i o n t hatt he t r i a l j udge w as corr ecti n concl udi n g t hatt h e def endant s ’conductdi d notr i se to t he act i onabl e l evel . V . The I n t e r f

e r ence w i t h t he C ounsel o r - Pat i entR e l a t i onshi p- 10 - W e t r eatt h i s s ubj ectsepara t e l y becaus e i t i s perhaps t h e m o s tseri ous and becaus e i t r e l a t es to al l o f t he w r ongs al l eged by t he Ti d m ans.

I n A l ber t s v . D evi n e , 479 N . E . 2d 113 ( M ass . 1985) , t h e cour tf ound a sus t a i nabl e cause of act i on agai nst

a m i n i s te r ’ s churc h s u per i o r s f

o ri nduci ng t he m i n i s te r ’ s ps ychi a t r i s t t o r eveal confi dent i a l i n f

o r m a t i o n t o t h e m . I n Pa rt V I o f t h i s opi n i on w e d i s t i ngui s h t hatcase f r o m t h i s one. A fu r t herand per haps m o r e fundam ent a l di f

f e r ence r esul t s f

r o m a cl ose i nspect i on o f th e T i d m ans’al l egat i ons. The com p l a i n tonl y al l eges t hatMr . Lai t y sought confi dent i a l i n f

o r m a t i on fr o m M r . Ti d m an’ s t her api s t . I t does notal l ege t hathe di scov e r ed anyt h i ng. I n addi t i on, M r . L a i t y ’ s le t t e r t o M r . Ti d m an’ s couns e l o ri s m ade an exhi b i t and i t r eads i n par t as f o llo w s : I do appr eci a t e and r esp ect t he confi dent i a l

r e l a t i onshi p t hatm ust exi s t bet w een coun s e l o r and counsel ee, an d atno t i m e w oul d I w antt o i n t r ude on t hatr e l a t i o nshi p . That sam e r espect appl i es to your

w o r k w i t h C apt a i n M a r k Ti d m an. M y r eason t her e f

o r e f o rt he t e l ephone cal l sev e r a l w eeks ago a nd t h i s l e t t e ri s t hatsom e r epor t i s r equi r e d by The Sal vat i o n A r m y w h i ch w i l l hel p us t o ascert a i n t h e act i ve part i c i pat i on and t h e benefi t s recei ved f r o m t he counsel i ng pr ocess . Ther e ar e sev e r a l f

act o r s w h i c h w e bel i eve w oul d g i v e r eason f

o rr equest i ng som e r espon s e fro m you:- 11 - 1 . The i ndi v i dual r ecei v i n g c ounsel i ng i s payi ng no per sonal funds to r ecei ve t h i s benef i t . The Sal vat i on A r m y , i n i t s care and con cer n f o r t h i s o f f i c e ris w illin g to c over al l expenses connect ed w i t h t he ses s i ons. 2 . A n y of

fi cerr ecei v i n g such benef i t s under s tands t hatsom e basi c i n f o r m a t i on w i l l be share d w i t h m y of fi ce. N o confi d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i on i s requested i n t h i s repor t . 3 . I n th e case of C apt a i n Ti d m an, he has been i n counsel i ng ses s i ons w i t h you s i nce January of 1993 on a r egul a rbasi s . H opefu l l y , som e posi t i v e changes shoul d have taken pl a c e dur i ng t hat t i m e . N o w , havi ng shared w i t h m e som e aspects of hi s o w n life and t he t r aum as w h i ch have s evere l y a f f ect e d hi m , I can w e l l under s tand t hatt h e p r ocess of

w o r k i n g t h r ough al l of t hatm ust

t ake t i m e and gr eatpat i ence. C hanges m ust occur i n t e r nal l y and t o expe c t r adi cal c h ange ext e r nal l y m u s tbe a n t i c i pat ed w i t h f o r bear ance and w i t h som e caut i on l est

t hey exacerbat e t he em o t i onal scars w i t h w h i ch he i s deal i ng. F r o m an adm i n i s t r a t i ve pos i t i o n , The Sal vat i o n A r m y is concer ned t hataft e rt h i s l engt h o f ti m e , t her e seem s to be l i t t l e orno changes i n hi s under s t andi n g of

peopl e and t hei rneeds, of w o r k i n g r e l a t i onshi ps, orhi s ow n i n t e r per sonal r espons es. I n your t e l ephon e m ess age t o m e , you i m p l i e d t hatThe Sal vat i on A r m y l e a der shi p needed t o t ake w hat ever

act i ons t hey deem e d necess a r y i n dea lin g w i t h C apt a i n Ti d m an. That stance o n your par tr a t herconcer ns m e . Evi dent l y Ma r k has share d m uch i n f

o r m a t i on w i t h you regar d i ng hi s f e e l i ngs t o w a r d adm i n i s t r a t i o n and hi s appoi n t m ent s . That i s as i t shoul d be, how ever, h e cannotbe t o t a l l y obj ect i ve a nd none of us w oul d be i n l i ke ci r cum s tances. I ti s not

m y des i r e t o share w i t h you i n f o r m a t i o n t hatw oul d bi as y ourw o r k w i t h hi m , how ever- 12 - som e i n f

o r m a t i on fr o m you woul d hel p t h e l eader shi p t o know how t o r espond to hi m i n t h e com i ng days . I w oul d ap p r eci a t e your gi v i ng m e atl east t h e basi c i n f

o r m a t i on on t he at t ached r e p o rt. In addi t i on, som e i ndi c a t i on as to a fu t u r e a f f i r m a t i v e concl usi o n of t he counsel i ng pr ocess w oul d be hel p fu l . Thi s w i l l be h e l d as confi dent i a l . I f

you des i r e t o t a l k w i t h M a r k as to t h e cont ent s of

your r epor t , w e w i l l be pl eased to cover any expens es i nvol ved w i t h t hatshari ng. Y o u rti m e l y respons e t o t h i s request i s m ost appr eci a t ed.

W e cannotfi nd i n t he l e t t e ra r equest t hatt he counsel o rr eveal confi dent i a l i n f

o r m a t i on. I n f

act , t he l e t t e rr ecogni z es t hatt h e counsel o rcannotr eveal i n f o r m a t i o n gi ven i n confi dence, and i t concl udes by urg i ng t he counsel o rt o di scus s t he i n f o r m a t i o n sought w i t h M r . Ti d m an. A nd, as we have poi n t ed out , t he c o m p l a i n tdoes notal l ege t hatany breach of confi dence occur r ed.

V I . R e l i g i ous Freedom

The Sal vat i on A r m y i s a church f o rFi r s t

A m endm ent pur p o ses. M c C l u r e v. The Sal vat i on A r m y , 460 F. 2d 553 ( 5 t h C i r . 1972) . B y prevent i ng t he govern m entfr o m i n t e r f e r i n g wi t h th e fre e exer c i s e of

r e l i g i on, t he Fi r s t A m endm entl i m i t s t he r o l e of ci v i l cour t s i n r esol v i ng cont r overs i es t hataf f ectt he chur ch and i t s- 13 - m e m ber s . Ser b i an East e r n O r t hodox D i ocese v . M i l i voj evi c h , 426 U . S . 696( 1976) . I n m a t t e r s i nvol v i ng “ d i sci p l i ne, f a i t h , i n t e r nal o r gani z a t i on, oreccl esi ast i cal r u l e , custo m orl a w ” th e c i v i l cour t s a r e bound t o acceptt he deci s i ons of a r e l i g i ous or gani z a t i on. I d . at 713.

H o w ever, notal l act i ons of chur ch of

fi c i a l s are fr ee fr o m s t a t e i n t e r f e r e nce. P r esby t e r i an C hur ch v. H u l l M e m o r i a l P r esby t e r i a n C hur c h , 393 U . S . 440 ( 1969) ; A l ber t s v . D evi n e , 479 N . E . 2 d 113 ( M ass . 1985) ; B earv. R e f o r m ed M ennoni t e C hur c h , 341 A . 2 d 105 ( Pa. 1975) ; G u i nn v. C hur ch of C h r i s t of C o llin s v ille , 775 P. 2 d 766(O k l a . 1989) . Som e cour t s deci de di sputes i nvol v i n g r e lig i ous o r gani z a t i ons i f

t hey can be resol ved byt he appl i cat i on of “ neut r a l p r i nci p l es” of

l a w . M oses v. D i ocese of C o l o r ado , 863 P. 2d 310(C o l o . 1993) . M o s tcour t s m ake a di s t i nct i on bet w een casesi nvol v i n g t h e r e l i g i ous orderand i t s cl e r gy and to r t cases i nvol v i ng l a y m e m ber s . W i t h r espect t o t he e m p l oym entof cl e r gy, t he cour t s are near l y unani m ous i n hol d i ng t hatt he ci v i l cour t s cannot “ i nvol v e t hem sel ves i n r evi e w i ng t he t e r m i nat i on of cl e r gy f

o rt heol ogi cal or d i sci p l i nar y r easons . ” H i ggi ns v . M a h e r , 210 C a l . A pp. 3d 1168 at 1170(C a l . A pp. 1989) . A s t he cour t sai d in M c C l u r e v. The Sal vat i o n A r m y ,- 14 - The r e l a t i onshi p bet w een an or gani z e d chur c h and i t s m i n i s te r s i s i t s life b l ood. The m i n i s t e ri s t he c h i e f i nst r u m entby w h i ch t h e chur c h seekst o fu l fi l l it s pur pose. M a t t e r s t ouchi n g t h i s re l a t i onshi p m ust necess a r i l y be r ecogni z e d as of

pr i m e eccl esi ast i cal concer n . 460F. 2d at558- 9 . It i s f o rt h i s reason t hatt he Ti d m ans v o l unt a r i l y d i s m i ssed t hei rcl a i m s bas ed on t he t e r m i nat i on of em p l oym ent . They r ecogni z ed t hatThe Sal vat i on A r m y ’ s d e t e r m i nat i on of a suf fi c i entr eason f

o rdi scharg e i s bey ond t he r evi e w i n g pow e rof t h e c our t s . “ [ T ] he super v i sory pow e rof

t he ci v i l t r i bunal s m a y not b e i nvoked w hen t he onl y proper t y i nvol ved i s t he l oss of cl e r i cal o ffic e and t he sal a r y i nci dentt her e t o . W a t son v . Jones , 80 U . S . 679 ( 1871) .

Tor tcl a i m s , how eve r , do no t enj oy t he sam e degr ee of p r o t ect i on fr o m sta t e pow e r . See A l ber t s v. D evi n e , 479 N . E . 2d 113 ( M ass. 1985) ; G u i nn v. C hur ch of C h r i s t of C o l l i n s v ille , 7 75 P. 2d 766 ( O k l a . 1989) . I n Sher ber t v. V e r ner , 374 U . S . 398 ( 1963) , t h e Supr e m e C our thel d t hatact i ons pos i ng “ som e subs t ant i a l t h r eatof publ i c saf e t y , peace, oror der ” m ay be subj ectt o govern m ent a l r egul a t i o n even t hough pr o m p t ed by re l i g i ous bel i e f s or pr i nci p l es. 374 U . S . at 403. The i n t ent i onal and m a l i c i ous al i enat i on of af f ect i o n of one spous e fr o m t he ot hert h r eat ens publ i c w e l f a r e and or derand does notcom e w i t h i n t he p r o t ect i on of t he Fi r s t

A m endm ent . H este rv. B a r net t , 723 S. W . 2d 544 ( M o . A pp. 1987) . “ A ppl i cat i on of a secul a r s tandar d t o secul a rconductt hati s to r t i ous i s not pr ohi b i t ed by th e- 15 - C onst i t u t i on. ” M o s e s v. D i ocese of C o l o r ado , 863 P. 2d 310 at320 ( C o l o . 1993) .

Ther e ar e caseshow ever, i n w h i ch t he al l eged t o r t s occur i n t he cour se of

t he pr oceedi ng i nvol v i ng d i s c i p l i ne of pr i est or pasto r . I n one case the cour t hel d t hatt he t o r t s al l eged w e r e “ s i m p l y t o o cl ose to t h e pecul i a r l y re l i g i ous as pect s of t he t r ansact i on t o be segregat e d and t r eat ed separa t e l y -- as s i m p l e ci v i l w r ongs. ” H i ggi n s v . M aher , 210 C a l . A pp. 3d 1168 at1176 (C a l . A pp. 1989) . I n anot her , t h e cour thel d t hati nduci ng a phys i c i an t o br each hi s pat i ent ’ s confi dence and di vul ge i n f o r m a t i on t o t hatpat i ent ’ s chur ch superi o r s d i d not enj oy Fi r s t A m endm entpr o t ect i on. A l ber t s v . D evi n e , 479 N . E . 2d 113 ( M ass . 1985) .

W e ar e per suaded t hatt h i s cas e i s m o r e l i ke H i ggi n s . Ful l e rquot es f

r o m t hatcase f

o l l o w : H i ggi n s has pl eaded t he ess ent i a l el e m ent s of t h e t o r t s of

i nvas i on of

pr i vacy , def

a m a t i on, and t he i n t ent i onal and negl i gen t i n fl i c t i on of e m o t i o n a l di s t r ess . H i s pl eadi ng i s pl a i n and d i r ect i n t e r m s of accusi ng t he B i shop and o t herchur ch hi e r a r chy of unw a r r ant ed a n d m a l i c i ous conductw h i ch caused hi m sev e r e dam age. Ha d t hese al l egat i ons been s e t fo rth w i t houtt he pr eam b l e show i ng t hei rgenesi s i n t h e pr i est - b i shop re l a t i o n shi p , i t i s doubtfu l t hey coul d have been di s m i s s ed on dem u r r e r . 210 C a l . A pp. 3d at1175.- 16 - R egar d l e s s o f

t he chur ch’ s m o t i ves or obj ect i ves , ort he ci r cum s tances gi v i ng r i se, w e w oul d pr obabl y agree t hatt o r t s s u c h as b a tte r y , f

a l se i m p r i sonm entorconvers i o n cannotbe per pet r a t e d upon i t s m e m ber s w i t h c i v i l i m puni t y . W e fi nd, how ever, t hatatl east i n t he cont extof

H i ggi ns’ s av e r m ent s , t h e to rts r eci t e d ar e si m p l y too cl ose to t he pecul i a r l y r e l i g i ous aspects of t he t r ansact i on t o be segregat e d and t r eat ed separa t e l y -- as s i m p l e c i v i l w r ongs. The m aki ng of accusat i ons of m i sconduct ; t he di scus s i on of sam e w i t h i n t h e o r der ; t he r ecom m endat i on of psy cho l ogi cal or m edi cal t r eat m ent ; t he i n fl i c t i on, w h e t her i n t ent i o n a lly ornegl i gent l y , of em o t i onal d i s tre s s - -

t hese are al l act i v i t i es and resul t s w h i c h w i l l oft en, i f notusual l y , a t t end t h e d i f fi cul tpr ocess b y w h i ch pr i est l y f acul t i es are t e r m i nat ed. I f

ourci v i l cour t s e n t e r upon d i spute s bet w een b i shop s and pri ests becaus e o f al l egat i ons of

def a m a t i on, m ent a l di s t r ess and i nvas i on of

pr i vacy , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to concei v e t he t e r m i nat i on case w h i ch coul d not r esul ti n a sus t a i nabl e l a w sui t . 210 C a l . A pp. 3d at1176.

I n t h i s cas e , al l t he al l egat i ons of w r ongdoi ng i nvol ved condu c t t hatoccur r ed i n t he cour se of an i nves t i gat i on concer n i n g M r . Ti d m an’ s fitn e s s to fil l a n of fi ce i n The Sal vat i on A r m y . Thi s i s a pecul i a r l y eccl esi ast i cal under t aki n g , a n d i t i nvol ves The Sal vat i o n A r m y ’ s bel i e f

s and core val ues.

W e hol d t hatt he com p l a i n tshoul d have been di s m i s s ed on t h i s ground as we l l .The j udgm entof t he t r i a l cour t i s af fi r m ed and t he cause i s r e m anded t o t he C i r cui t C our t of D avi d s o n C ount y f o rany f

u r t her p r oceedi ng necess a r y . Tax t he costs on appeal t o t he appel l ant s .

____________________________ B E N H. CA N T R E L L , J UDGE CONCU R :

_______________________________ H E NRY F . T ODD , P R E S I D I NG J UDGE M I D D LE SECTI O N

_______________________________ W I L L I AM B. CA I N , J UDGE 

### I N TH E CO U RT O F APPEALS O F TENN ESSEE

AT NAS HVI L L E

M A R K S . T I DMAN a n d ) E V E L YN J . T I DMAN, ) ) P l a i n t i f f s / A ppel l ant s , )

) A ppeal N o . VS. ) 01-A -01- 9708-C V -00380 ) THE S A L VATI O N ARM Y , ) D avi dson Ci r cui t J AMES R. W ORT HY, BE R T H A ) N o . 97C - 176 W ORTHY, KENNETH E. BREW ER, ) F R E D R U T H , ) A f fi r m ed and ) R e m anded D e f endant s /

A ppel l ees. ) 

### J U D G M E N T Thi s cause cam e on t o be hear d upon t he r ecor d on appeal fro m t he C i r cui tC our t of D avi dson Count y , br i e f s and argum entof- 18 - counsel ; upon consi der a t i on w her eof, t h i s Cour t i s of t he opi n i on t hat i n t he j udgm entof

t he t r i a l cour t t her e i s no revers i b l e er r o r . I n accor dance w i t h t he opi n i o n of t he C our t fi l ed her e i n , i ti s , t her e f

o r e , or der ed and adj udged by th i s Cour t t hatt h e j udgm ent o f t he t r i a l cour ti s af fi r m ed. The cause i s re m anded t o t he C i r cui t C our tof

D avi d son C ount y f o rt he execut i on of t he j udgm entand f o r t he col l ect i on of

t he costs accrued bel o w . C o s t s of

t h i s appeal ar e t axed agai nst M a r k S. Ti d m an and E v e l y n Ti d m an, Pr i nci pal s , and Lar r y L. C r a i n , Sur e t y , f o rw h i c h execut i on m ay i s s ue i f necess a r y .

________________________________ H E NRY F . TODD, PRESI D I N G J UDG E M I D D LE SECTI O N

________________________________ B E N H. CA N T R E L L , J UDGE

________________________________ W I L L I AM B. CA I N , J UDGE