Opinion ID: 4217259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ecclesiastical-Abstention Doctrine.

Text: The ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine prohibits secular courts from adjudicating pred At bottom, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is primarily 0 interested in preventing any chilling effect on church practices as a result of government intrusion in the form of secular courts. But when the case merely involves a church, or even a minister, but does not require the interpretation of actual church doctrine, courts need not invoke the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. No entanglement concern arises as a result of the mere inference of religion. Courts must look not at the lab~l placed on the action but at the actual issues the court has been asked to decide.7 This court in Saint Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v, Edwards also expounded on the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine: But churches are not the only [beneficiaries]· of ecclesiastical abstention. All religious organizations are entitled to 'protection under the First Amendment, so all suits that present an ecclesiastical character, those which concern theological controversy, church discipline, ecdesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals s Brief for Appellant at 31. 6 Saint Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v. Edwards, 449 S.W.3d 727 (Ky. 2014); 133 Am. Jur. Trials 379, § 7 (2014). 1 426 S.W.3d 597, 619 (Ky. 2014) (internal citations omitted). 4 / requiied of them fall within the scop~ of the ecclesiasticalabstention doctrine.a ' Under the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine, the question at the heart of whether Cropper's contract claim should be allowed is whether [Cropper's] breach of contract claim can be decided without wading into doctrinal waters.9 Simply stated, deciding Cropper's breach of contract claim does not ' require application of church law or doctrine. In fact, Saint 1Augustine's justification for the Cropper's dismissal stems from declining student · enrollment and shrinking revenues. No matter the extent of Cropper's involvement in the religious life of Saint Augustine; adjudicating her damages claim for breach of her employment contract does not require the secular court's wading into doctrinal waters; it is simply the termination of the lay ) administrator at a parochial school. Even if Cropper had been a prominent actor in the religious life of the community, unless Saint Augustine- fired her for . . reasons associated with the application of church doctrine or governance, the ·ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine would not apply. This case mirrors the factual circumstances of Kirby almost perfectly. In Kirby, this court held the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine not to apply to a breach-of-contract claim raised by a tenured ·professor, Kirby, who taught Christian social ethics at the Lexington .Theological Seminary. 10 The Seminary terminated Kirby's position because of a tsunami of economic disasters s 449 S.W.3d at 739. 9. Id. at 620. 10 Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 597, 601 (Ky. 2014). ·s causing the Seminary's budget to shrink dramatfoally.11 In this case, Cropper was the lay adr:p.inistrator-the principal-of Saint Augustine School, which terminated her position because enrollment was dropping and money was tight. We follow this Court's rejection of the Lexington Theology Seminary's ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine defense in Kirby by rejecting Saint Augustine's ecclesiastical-a1Jstention doctrine defense today. Therefore, we hold that the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine affirmative I ! defense does not apply in this case because Cropper's breach-of-contract claim requires no inspection or evaluation of church doctrine. Neutral principles of law can be applied. According, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply .... 12