Defamation
Key point 4-02.1. Ministers may be liable for making defamatory statements if a civil court can resolve the dispute without any inquiry into church doctrine or polity.
Key point 10-15. The first amendment limits, but does not eliminate, a church’s liability for defamation.
* A Florida court ruled that it was barred by the first amendment from resolving a woman’s defamation claim against her church. A woman ("Esther") sued her pastor and church, claiming that the pastor called her a "slut" while standing at the church altar in front of the other pastors and church members. Esther sued the pastor and church for defamation, and she also sued the church on the basis of negligent retention and control of the pastor. She claimed that the church knew or should have known that the pastor was an employee presenting a "high risk of harm" to parishioners and requiring supervision and control, and that it breached this duty by failing to take reasonable measures to prevent the alleged slander. The church asked the court to dismiss the case on the ground that any resolution of Esther’s claims would require the court to inquire into the church’s religious doctrines and practices. The church also argued that Esther’s claims were barred because they would require determination of the reasonableness of church doctrine and faith. It pointed out that use of the word "slut" may have a "different meaning" within the context of the church than it may have in the secular world. The church claimed that there may be a "qualified privilege" to utter the allegedly defamatory statement. Finally, the church argued that consideration of the claim for negligent failure to control would interfere with the church’s internal governance. According to the church, the court’s consideration of these matters would violate the first amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Florida Constitution. The trial court declined to dismiss the case. It concluded that the lawsuit made no mention of church polity or doctrine but simply alleged that the church failed to properly supervise and control its pastor. A state appeals court disagreed, and dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that any resolution of Esther’s claims would "entangle" the court in religious doctrine and practice in violation of the first amendment. It noted that "excessive entanglement with religion occurs when the courts begin to review and interpret a church’s constitution, laws, and regulations. The first amendment prohibits courts from resolving doctrinal disputes or determining whether a religious organization acted in accordance with its canons and bylaws." However, the court concluded that the first amendment did not prevent Esther from pursuing her defamation claim against the pastor, individually. The House of God Church v. White, 792 So.2d 491 (Fla. App. 2001).
© Copyright 2002 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m53 m47 c0102
