Court Opinion

ID: 9588654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:36:37.449009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:39.632431
License: Public Domain

Banke, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
This case does not involve a dispute over ecclesiastical doctrine or church leadership but merely a dispute over whether the parties contracted for a definite term of employment and whether, if so, the appellee breached that contract by discharging the appellant without cause prior to the end of the term. No one is arguing that the bishop did not have the power to relieve the appellant of his pastoral duties. The question is simply whether the appellant was entitled to continue to receive his salary, a fact which undoutedly explains why the appellee never raised the First Amendment issue until questioned by this court during oral argument of the case.
“[T]he [United States Supreme] Court has . . . rejected an absolute rule that civil courts are powerless to resolve any church property dispute. Bouldin v. Alexander, 82 U. S. (15 Wall.) 131 (21 LE 69) (1872); Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U. S. 440 (89 SC 601, 21 LE2d 658) (1969); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U. S. 595 (99 SC 3020, 61 LE2d 775) (1979). Thus, Supreme Court decisions have attempted to strike an appropriate balance between the establishment and free exercise concerns implicated when a court is asked to resolve an ecclesiastical dispute, and the interests of the state and the aggrieved party in resolution of the con*182troversy by a court of law.” Crowder v. Southern Baptist Convention, 828 F2d 718, 721 (11th Cir. 1987).
Decided March 17, 1989
Rehearing denied March 31, 1989
Elizabeth F. Bunce, Michael K. Mixson, for appellant.
Brent J. Savage, Dorothy W. Courington, Christopher E. Klein, for appellee.
The decision of the majority in the present case does not attempt to strike such a balance but appears to create an absolute prohibition against the adjudication of any employment dispute between a cleric and his or her church, regardless of whether it is based on the alleged breach of a contractual obligation. I am greatly troubled by the very broad implications of this decision. Will it allow, for example, that a church may defeat an action for back pay for services rendered by a priest merely by asserting that its doctrine prohibits it from acknowledging such debts? As I believe that the present controversy involves property rights only and does not call for a resolution of any ecclesiastical or theological dispute, I would hold that the trial court does have jurisdiction to entertain the action. Accord Gervin v. Reddick, 246 Ga. 56 (2) (268 SE2d 657) (1980); Hickman v. Booker, 231 Ga. 129 (1) (200 SE2d 279) (1973). Compare Monahan v. Sims, 163 Ga. App. 354 (294 SE2d 548) (1982); Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (96 SC 2372, 49 LE2d 151) (1976).
2. By the language of the manual of directives furnished to the appellant at the inception of his employment, the diocese clearly manifested its belief that the appellant was contractually bound to a minimum three-year term of employment. Compare Swanson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 181 Ga. App. 876 (2) (354 SE2d 204) (1987); Burgess v. Decatur Fed. Savings &c. Assn., 178 Ga. App. 787 (345 SE2d 45) (1986); Miles v. Bibb Co., 177 Ga. App. 364 (339 SE2d 316) (1985). I would accordingly hold that the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether such a contract existed; and I would reverse the grant of summary judgment to the appellee, leaving for adjudication in the trial court the issue of whether a breach of contract occurred or whether the appellant’s employment was properly terminated for cause.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Been, Judge Sognier, and Judge Pope join in this dissent.