If Church A dismisses an employee for misconduct and that individual is later hired by Church B, does Church A have a legal duty to warn Church B?
This article reviews a recent court case, examines several related cases, and concludes with key considerations and a practical checklist.
Recent Case: McRaney v. Mission Board
In McRaney v. Mission Board, 304 F. Supp.3d 514 (N.D. Miss. 2018), a federal district court ruled it could address a minister’s claims against a denominational missions board. The court found that neither the ministerial exception nor the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine barred the case.
Facts of the Case
- A missions agency terminated its executive director (the “plaintiff”), an ordained minister.
- The plaintiff alleged that an unrelated denominational missions board interfered with his business and contractual relationships by:
- Trying to cancel his scheduled speech at a pastors conference (unsuccessful).
- Taking steps that led to his termination from the missions agency (successful).
- Getting him removed from speaking at a missions symposium.
The Lawsuit
The plaintiff sued the missions board for intentional interference with business relationships.
The court noted that, under Mississippi law, a claim for interference requires:
- Intentional and willful acts;
- Acts aimed at causing damage to the plaintiff’s lawful business;
- Acts done with an unlawful purpose or malice;
- Actual damage or loss resulting; and
- Proof that the defendant’s acts caused the damage.
Key Court Findings:
- The claim related to the canceled pastors conference was dismissed—no actual damage occurred.
- The claims involving his termination and cancellation from the missions symposium were allowed to proceed.
Ministerial Exception Not Applicable: The court found the ministerial exception did not apply because:
- The plaintiff was not employed by the missions board.
- The claim did not involve an employment decision made by the defendant.
Four Case Studies: Interference with Contract
Across many states, individuals who interfere with an existing contract can be sued for “interference with contract.”
Important:
- Timing matters.
- Interference after hiring may lead to liability.
- Comments before hiring typically do not.
Case Study 1: Marshall v. Munro (Alaska)
- A denominational official made disparaging comments about a newly hired minister, leading to job loss.
- The Alaska Supreme Court allowed the interference claim, noting no core ecclesiastical issues were involved.
Case Study 2: Williams v. Palmer (Illinois)
- A Methodist minister sued over an unwanted transfer.
- The court dismissed the claim under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, stating the matter was internal church governance.
Case Study 3: Hayden v. Schulte (Louisiana)
- A priest claimed a church official’s letter harmed his Navy chaplain prospects.
- The court leaned toward protecting internal church communications.
Case Study 4: McGarry v. Saint Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church (New Jersey)
- A music director sued after a prior employer disclosed his criminal conduct.
- The court dismissed the case, citing:
- No malicious intent;
- Information was requested, not volunteered;
- A qualified privilege protected the disclosure.
Six Key Considerations
Churches must tread carefully when discussing a former employee’s misconduct. Here are six critical points:
1. Proving Interference with Contract
To succeed, plaintiffs usually must prove:
- A valid employment contract existed;
- Intentional interference by a former employer;
- Actual damage or loss occurred.
Note:
Some courts also recognize “interference with prospective contractual relations,” requiring proof that:
- A relationship or contract was likely;
- A wrongful act prevented it;
- The act was intentional;
- Harm resulted.
2. Misunderstanding the Duty to “Warn”
Many church leaders mistakenly believe they must warn other churches about a former employee’s misconduct.
However, courts generally do not impose an affirmative duty to warn.
Example:
In Hornback v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 752 N.W.2d 862 (Wis. 2008):
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the Diocese had no duty to warn future employers or the public about a priest’s past misconduct.
- The court emphasized the lack of a foreseeable relationship between the Diocese and the victims.
Important Distinction:
- Churches are not required to track former employees or warn every potential future employer.
- Liability may arise if a church provides a positive, unqualified reference that omits known misconduct.
3. High Plaintiff Win Rates
According to the American Bar Association:
- Interference with contract claims have a 70% plaintiff success rate, the highest among liability claims.
4. The Ministerial Exception
In Hosanna–Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that:
- The ministerial exception bars many employment-related lawsuits involving clergy.
- However, as seen in McRaney, not all interference claims are automatically barred.
5. Volunteers
Most interference claims require an employment relationship.
Thus, warnings about volunteers typically do not trigger interference with contract liability.
Conclusion
Churches must balance two risks when dealing with former employees:
- Remaining silent and potentially allowing misconduct to continue elsewhere.
- Speaking up and risking an interference with contract lawsuit.
Key takeaways:
- Avoid gratuitous disclosures unless asked for a reference.
- If providing information, stick to factual, verifiable details.
- Understand that an affirmative legal duty to warn is rare.
- Be cautious when issuing positive references for individuals with known misconduct.