F IL ED

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 r Pl 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 r D 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 r Sal vat i on A r m y of f i cer s , a husband and w i f e

w ho had been dem o t ed and di schar ged, sued t hei r super i o r of f i cer s

and The Sal vat i on A r m y i t sel f f o r i 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 f l 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 t f o r f a i l u r e t o st a 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 f i r m , and hol d , i n addi t i on, t hat t h e

def endant s ’ act i ons w e r e pr o t ect ed by t he F i r s t A m endm ent t 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 f t e r ser v i ng at com m uni t y cent e 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 w e r e t r ansf e r r ed t o N ashv i l l e under th e

com m and of M a j o r Jam es W o r t hy and hi s w i f e , M a j o r B e r t h a W o rth y .

The f o l l o w i ng f act s ar e 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 w e 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 hast en t o add, how ever , t hat t hey ar e onl y al l egat i ons.

P r i o r t o com i ng t o N ashv i l l e , M r . Ti d m an had s o u ght and

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 r a per sonal

p r obl e m , under The Sal vat i o n A r m y ’ s m edi cal cover age. 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 r about M 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 hat she w as act i ng as M r s . T i d m an’ s pas t o r and t hat t h e

det a i l s di scus sed “ w oul d not l 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 conf i ded t o M r s . W o r t hy t hat her hu 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 hat t he Ti d m ans m eet w i t h her and her husband

t h e next day. D u r i ng t h i s m eet i ng, M a j o r Jam es W o r t h y ass u r ed t h e

T i d m ans t hat t hey w e r e speaki ng conf i dent i a l l y and t hat he w a s

act i n g i n a past o r a l capaci t y . H o w ever , M r . W o r t h y ber a t e d and

i n t e r r ogat e d M a r k Ti d m an i n an accusat o r y m anner ; he dem anded a

conf ess i o n about th e af f a i r f r o m M a r k Ti d m an; and he st a t ed t he onl y

w a y f o r M r . Ti d m an t o sav e f ace w as t o r esi gn. M r . Ti d m an r e f used
- 4 -

t o conf ess , answ e r i ng onl y t h a t he 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 hat t 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 t about t 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 r i 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 r t he det a i l s of t h e counsel i n g

sessi o n s .

I n N ovem b e r of 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 her of 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 her conf r ont ed M r s . T i d m an about t 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 t o cause a r i f t i n t h e Ti d m an f a m i l y , t o

i n flic t sev 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 Januar y of 1996, Fr ed R u t h , t he D i r ect o r o f Per sonnel

f o r The Sal vat i on A r m y , sum m oned t he pl a i n t i f f s t o a m eet i n g in

N a shvi l l e , by f a l sel y r epr esent i ng t o t hem t hat t he pur pose of t h e

m eet i n g w as a per sonnel i n t e r v i e w . I nst ead, t he Ti d m ans w e r e

conf r ont e d by M r . R u t h , M a j o r B r e w e r , and M a j o r Jam es W o 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 f i del i t y . I n t h e
- 5 -

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

h i s t o r y of past o r a l counsel i ng f r 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 r di s m i s s ed f r o m t hei r

posi t i ons i n The Sal vat i on A r m y and w e r e to l d t o vacat e t hei r l 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 t o M r s . Ti d m an’ s f a t her t h e

det a i l s of t he Januar y 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 r i nvas i on of pr i vacy , i n t ent i o nal and

negl i gent i n f l 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 heor y of r espondeat

super i o r .

The def endant s f i l ed a m o t i on under Tenn. 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 t f a i l ed t o st a 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 hat t he f act ual r ecor d w oul d not suppor t a concl usi on t hat t h e

r e l i g i ous f r 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 t t he t r i a l j udge di d hol d t hat t he com p l a i n t f a i l e d

t o st a t e a cl a i m under any of t he t heor i es adv anced by t he 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 ear l i e r r 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 cour t m o r e r e c ent l y a dopt ed Sec. 652A of t h e

R est a t e m ent ( Second) of Tor t s as t h e basi s f o r t h e act i on. M a j o r v.

C har t e r Lakesi de H osp. , Shel by Law N o . 42, f i l ed at Jackson, A ug. 31,

1990. The Ti d m ans as ser t on appeal t hat t hei r case f a l l s w i t h i n t w o

o f t he R est a t e m ent ’ s cat egor i es: ( 1 ) t he publ i c di scl osur e of pr i vat e

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 t o t he f i r s t cat egor y i s t he w o r d “ publ i c . ” I n

M a j o r , w e sai d t hat t he R est a t e m ent r equi r e d a di scl osur e t o t h e

publ i c at l a r ge or t o so m any p e r sons t hat t he m a t t e r m ust be

r egar ded as s ubst ant i a l l y cer t 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 hat any pr i vat e i n f o r m a t i o n

w a s di scl osed t o anyone out s i de The Sal vat i on A r m y com m and

except M 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 r of f i cer i 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 t does not st a t e a cause of

act i on under Sect i on 652( D ) .

A s t o t he unr easonabl e i n t r usi on cat egor y de scr i b e d i n

Sect i o n 652( B ) , t he Ti d m ans ar gue on a ppeal t hat t he def endant s

“ i n t r uded i n t o t hei r per sonal and f a m i l y s o l i t ude under t he gui se of

past o r a l counsel i ng w hen t hei r t r ue m o t i ve w as t o i n f l i c t em o t i onal

suf f e r i ng. ” We have r ead t he com p l a i n t and cannot f i 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 t does s t a t e t hat

M r . Lai t y adv i sed M r s . T i d m an t hat she w oul 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 t does

not al l ege t hat t he def endant s t r i ed t o separ a t e t he Ti d m ans, or t hat

t h e def endant s s e t out on a del i ber a t e quest t o di scov e r t 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 r no of f i 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 act t hat af f ect e d

M r . Ti d m an’ s abi l i t y t o ser ve ef f ect i vel y as an of f i cer i 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 t ook pl ace at w o r k , w i t h i n t h e

o f f i c i a l ci r c l e t hat had t o m ake t hat det e r m i nat i on.

Thi s case i s di f f e r ent f r o m H est e r v. 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 t al l eged t hat t he H est e r ’ s
- 8 -

past o r “ gai ned access t o t he H est e r hom e t h r ough t he p r e t ense as

counsel o r t o a ssi s t i 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 t o har m t he H est e r s by t he di scl osur e 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 at 563. That

a l l egat i on, t aken as t r ue, w as cons i d e r ed by t he cour t as s u f f i 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 t ence of a secr e t and pr i vat e subj ect m a t t e r ; ( 2 ) a r i g h t i n t h e

p l a i n t i f f s t o keep t hat subj ect m a t t e r pr i vat e ; and ( 3 ) t he obt a i n m ent

b y t he def endant of i n f o r m a t i on about t he subj ect m a t t e r t h r ough

unr easonabl e m eans. 723 S. W . 2d at 562. 

For t he r easons st a t ed ab o v e , w e do not t h i nk t h e

a l l egat i ons i n t he com p l a i n t sat i s f y any of t hese el e m ent s . A

Sal vat i o n A r m y of f i cer ’ s cl a i m t hat he has a r i ght t o keep hi s conduct

secr e t m ust have a v e r y l i m i t e d scope w hen t hat conduct af f ect s hi s

a b ilit y to s e r ve hi s r e 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 hat t he def endant used unr easonabl e

m e t hods t o obt a i n t h i s al l eged pr i vat e i n f o r m a t i on.

I V .

I n f l 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 t cont a i ns a cl a i m f o r negl 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 hat t he com p l a i n t does not st a t e a

c l a i m f o r negl i gence.

The i n t ent i onal i n f l i c t i on of em o t i onal di s t r ess and

out r ageous conduct descr i 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

conduct com 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 out r ageous t hat i 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 ser i ous

m ent a l in j u r y . I d . at 622. The def endant ’ s conduct m ust be so

ext r e m e i n degr e e as t o go beyond al l bounds of decency. M edl i n v.

A llie d I nves t m ent C o . , 398 S. W . 2d 270 ( Tenn. 1966) . The cour t ’ s dut y

i n t he f i r s t i nst ance i s t o ap p l y t hese s t andar ds and t o det e r m i n e

“ w het her t he def endant ’ s conduct m ay r easonabl y be r egar ded as s o

ext r e m e and out r ageous as t o per m i t r ecover y . . . . ” I d . at 275.

For t 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 hat t he t r i a l j udge w as cor r ect i n concl udi n g t hat t h e

def endant s ’ conduct di d not r i se t o 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 ent R e l a t i onshi p
- 10 -

W e t r eat t h i s s ubj ect separ a t e l y becaus e i t i s per haps t h e

m o s t ser i ous and becaus e i t r e l a t es t o 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 t f ound a sus t a i nabl e cause of act i on agai nst a m i n i s t e r ’ s chur c h

s u per i o r s f o r i nduci ng t he m i n i s t e r ’ s ps ychi a t r i s t t o r eveal

conf i 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 hat case f r o m t h i s one. A f u r t her and per haps m o r e

f undam 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 t onl y al l eges t hat Mr . Lai t y

sought conf i dent i a l i n f o r m a t i on f r o m M r . Ti d m an’ s t her api s t . I t does

not al l ege t hat he 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 r i 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 conf i dent i a l

r e l a t i onshi p t hat m ust exi s t bet w een coun s e l o r

and counsel ee, an d at no t i m e w oul d I w ant t o

i n t r ude on t hat r e l a t i o nshi p . That sam e r espect

appl i es t o 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 r t 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 r i s t hat som 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 ascer t a i n t h e act i ve par t i c i pat i on and t h e

benef i t s r ecei 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 r r 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 f unds t o r ecei ve t h i s benef i t .

The Sal vat i on A r m y , i n i t s car e and con cer n f o r

t h i s o f f i c e r is 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 f i cer r ecei v i n g such benef i t s

under s t ands t hat som e basi c i n f o r m a t i on w i l l be

shar e d w i t h m y of f i ce. N o conf i d e n t i a l

i n f o r m a t i on i s r equest ed i n t h i s r epor 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 Januar y of

1993 on a r egul a r basi s . H opef u l l y , som e posi t i v e

changes shoul d have t aken pl a c e dur i ng t hat

t i m e .

N o w , havi ng shar ed w i t h m e som e aspect s of hi s

o w n lif e and t he t r aum as w h i ch have s ever e l y

a f f ect e d hi m , I can w e l l under s t and t hat t h e

p r ocess of w o r k i n g t h r ough al l of t hat m ust t ake

t i m e and gr eat pat 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 t be 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 exacer bat e t he em o t i onal

scar s 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 hat af t e r t h i s l engt h o f ti m e ,

t her e seem s t o be l i t t l e or no changes i n hi s

under s t andi n g of peopl e and t hei r needs, of

w o r k i n g r e l a t i onshi ps, or hi 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 hat The 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 st ance o n

your par t r a t her concer ns m e . Evi dent l y M a r k has

shar e d m uch i n f o r m a t i on w i t h you r egar 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 cannot be 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 t ances.

I t i s not m y des i r e t o shar e w i t h you i n f o r m a t i o n

t hat w oul d bi as y our w o r k w i t h hi m , how ever
- 12 -

som e i n f o r m a t i on f r o m you w oul d hel p t h e

l eader shi p t o know how t o r espond t o 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 at l 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 t o a f u 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 f u l . Thi s w i l l be h e l d as

conf i 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 t o

cover any expens es i nvol ved w i t h t hat shar i ng.

Y o u r ti m e l y r espons e t o t h i s r equest i s m ost

appr eci a t ed.

W e cannot f i nd i n t he l e t t e r a r equest t hat t he counsel o r r eveal

conf i 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 r r ecogni z es t hat t h e

counsel o r cannot r eveal i n f o r m a t i o n gi ven i n conf i dence, and i t

concl udes by ur g i ng t he counsel o r t 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 w e have poi n t ed out , t he c o m p l a i n t does

not al l ege t hat any br each of conf i dence occur r ed.

V I .

R e l i g i ous Fr eedom

The Sal vat i on A r m y i s a chur ch f o r Fi 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 pr event i ng t he gover n m ent f r 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 ent l 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 over s i es t hat af f ect t 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, or eccl esi ast i cal r u l e , cust o m or l a w ” th e c i v i l cour t s

a r e bound t o accept t 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 , not al l act i ons of chur ch of f i c i a l s ar e f r ee f r 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 ear v. 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 sput es 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 r esol ved by t 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 t cour t s m ake a di s t i nct i on bet w een cases i nvol v i n g

t h e r e l i g i ous or der and i t s cl e r gy and t o 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 ent of cl e r gy, t he cour t s ar e

near l y unani m ous i n hol d i ng t hat t 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 r t 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 t e r s i s i t s life b l ood. The

m i n i s t e r i s t he c h i e f i nst r u m ent by w h i ch t h e

chur c h seeks t o f u l f i l l it s pur pose. M a t t e r s

t ouchi n g t h i s r e 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 .

460 F. 2d at 558- 9 . It i s f o r t h i s r eason t hat t he Ti d m ans v o l unt a r i l y

d i s m i ssed t hei r cl 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 hat The Sal vat i on A r m y ’ s d e t e r m i nat i on of a

suf f i c i ent r eason f o r di schar g e i s bey ond t he r evi e w i n g pow e r of t h e

c our t s . “ [ T ] he super v i sor y pow e r of 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 pr oper 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 dent t her e t o . W a t son v . Jones , 80 U . S . 679 ( 1871) .

Tor t cl 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 f r o m st a 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 t hel d t hat act i ons pos i ng “ som e subs t ant i a l t h r eat of publ i c

saf e t y , peace, or or der ” m ay be subj ect t o gover n m ent a l r egul a t i o n

even t hough pr o m p t ed by r e 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 f r o m t he ot her t h r eat ens publ i c w e l f a r e and or der and does

not com 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 est e r v.

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 t andar d t o secul a r conduct t hat i s t o 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 at 320

( C o l o . 1993) .

Ther e ar e cases how 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

past o r . I n one case t he cour t hel d t hat t he t o r t s al l eged w e r e “ s i m p l y

t o o cl ose t o t h e pecul i a r l y r e l i g i ous as pect s of t he t r ansact i on t o be

segr egat e d and t r eat ed separ a 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 at 1176 ( C a l . A pp. 1989) . I n anot her ,

t h e cour t hel d t hat i nduci ng a phys i c i an t o br each hi s pat i ent ’ s

conf i dence and di vul ge i n f o r m a t i on t o t hat pat i ent ’ s chur ch super i o r s

d i d not enj oy Fi r s t A m endm ent pr 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 hat t h i s cas e i s m o r e l i ke H i ggi n s .

Ful l e r quot es f r o m t hat case 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 f l 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 her chur ch hi e r a r chy of unw a r r ant ed a n d

m a l i c i ous conduct w 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 hout t he pr eam b l e show i ng t hei r genesi s i n

t h e pr i est - b i shop r e l a t i o n shi p , i t i s doubt f u 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 at 1175.
- 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 , or t he ci r cum s t ances gi v i ng r i se,

w e w oul d pr obabl y agr ee t hat t o r t s s u c h as

b a tte r y , f a l se i m p r i sonm ent or conver s i o n

cannot be 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 f i nd, how ever , t hat at l east

i n t he cont ext of 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 t oo cl ose t o t he pecul i a r l y

r e l i g i ous aspect s of t he t r ansact i on t o be

segr egat e d and t r eat ed separ a 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 f l i c t i on, w h e t her

i n t ent i o n a lly or negl i gent l y , of em o t i onal

d i s tre s s - - t hese ar e al l act i v i t i es and r esul t s

w h i c h w i l l of t en, i f not usual l y , a t t end t h e

d i f f i cul t pr ocess b y w h i ch pr i est l y f acul t i es ar e

t e r m i nat ed. I f our ci v i l cour t s e n t e r upon

d i sput e s bet w een b i shop s and pr i est s 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 t i n a sus t a i nabl e l a w sui t .

210 C a l . A pp. 3d at 1176.

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 hat occur 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 f i 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 cor e val ues.

W e hol d t hat t he com p l a i n t shoul d have been di s m i s s ed on

t h i s gr ound as w e l l .
The j udgm ent of t he t r i a l cour t i s af f i 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 r any f u r t her

p r oceedi ng necess a r y . Tax t he cost s 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 f i 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 t C our t of D avi dson Count y , br i e f s and ar gum ent of
- 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 ent of t he t r i a l cour t t her e i s no r ever s 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 f i l ed her e i n ,

i t i s , t her e f o r e , or der ed and adj udged by t h i s Cour t t hat t h e j udgm ent

o f t he t r i a l cour t i s af f i r m ed. The cause i s r e m anded t o t he C i r cui t

C our t of D avi d son C ount y f o r t he execut i on of t he j udgm ent and f o r

t he col l ect i on of t he cost s accr ued 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 r w 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