Church Autonomy

What legal protections and defenses can religious organizations rely on in today’s environment?

Who qualifies for the ministerial exception, and how can religious organizations use it to defend against employment lawsuits?

How should religious organizations handle misconduct investigations while respecting both their mission and legal obligations?

How can religious employers structure their policies and handbooks to reduce legal risk while preserving their religious values?

A religious organization was accused of protecting a known pedophile within its organization. How can an organization stay on the right side of the law and be sure that it protects children?

Connecticut court says the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevents it from deciding whether a religious organization is liable for not conducting a mental fitness evaluation.

Religious schools have always had the right to decide whether students should have to keep a moral code as a condition of enrollment. A recent case out of Texas, In re St. Thomas High School, solidifies this right.

When someone brings their church to court in Texas there are two things the court is likely to do. The court may refuse to hear the case because it would require getting into church doctrine or issues that are reserved to the church’s decision-making (“church autonomy” or “ecclesiastical abstention”). Or, the court could hear the case just like any other civil action because the court can decide the case using “neutral principles of law.” These are the principles of law that control the case when doctrine is not critical.

You hate to see a case with a caption like God’s Hope Builders, Inc. v. Mount Zion Baptist Church, since it seems unlikely the lawsuit is what God would have hoped for. The Georgia Court of Appeals, on March 28, 2013, remanded this case with orders to the trial court to figure out, if it legitimately could, who the church members actually were.