Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc.
20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 746, 796 N.E.2d 286, 2003 Ind. LEXIS 790 (2003)
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, through the church autonomy doctrine, protects religious institutions from civil liability for claims of blacklisting or tortious interference when the alleged interference involves truthful communication among church officials about a pending lawsuit and is consistent with ecclesiastical directives, provided no independent illegal act occurred.
Facts:
- In August 1992, Father Jose Martelli, pastor of Sacred Heart Church (part of the Diocese), dismissed Beverly Brazauskas from her position as Director of Religious Education and Liturgy.
- Brazauskas subsequently sued the Diocese and Father Martelli over her termination, and this lawsuit remained pending.
- In late 1992, Father Martelli sent copies of highly critical letters he received from a supporter of Brazauskas (Kern Trembath) to Father Edward Malloy, President of the University of Notre Dame, stating he was bringing them to Malloy's attention, and copied Bishop John D'Arcy.
- In June 1993, a search committee at Notre Dame recommended Brazauskas for a position as Acting Director of Notre Dame's Program for Church Leaders (PCL).
- Father Malloy rejected Brazauskas's recommendation, stating that Notre Dame should not hire someone with an active lawsuit against the local bishop until the matter was resolved, to maintain a positive relationship with the Catholic Church community.
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a 1990 directive from Pope John Paul II, encourages close cooperation, communication, and mutual trust between Catholic universities and local diocesan bishops.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly Brazauskas sued Father Jose Martelli and the Fort Wayne-South Bend Catholic Diocese in an Indiana trial court (court of first instance) on various grounds including breach of contract, wrongful discharge, and fraud.
- All initial claims, except for blacklisting and tortious interference with a business relationship, were eventually dismissed.
- Brazauskas added claims for blacklisting and tortious interference with a business relationship against Father Martelli and the Diocese in the trial court.
- In 1997, the trial court denied the Diocese defendants' motion for summary judgment on the tortious interference and blacklisting claims.
- On appeal of this summary judgment denial, the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) sua sponte noted that the Diocese defendants should have challenged subject matter jurisdiction via motions to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) rather than summary judgment motions. Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 253, 259 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). (This procedural step clarifies the context for the later dismissal.)
- Following this guidance, in February 2001, the trial court dismissed the blacklisting and tortious interference claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Brazauskas appealed this dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, agreeing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 201 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). (The decision being appealed to the Supreme Court).
- The Indiana Supreme Court (highest court) granted transfer to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, specifically the church autonomy doctrine, entitle a religious institution to summary judgment against claims of blacklisting and tortious interference with a business relationship when the alleged interference involves truthful communication between church officials about a pending lawsuit and is consistent with internal church directives?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, Chief Justice
No, the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, specifically the church autonomy doctrine, entitles the religious institution to summary judgment against claims of blacklisting and tortious interference when the alleged interference involved truthful communication between church officials and was consistent with church directives. The Court first clarified that, contrary to the lower courts' rulings, the trial court did possess subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute, but the Diocese defendants were still entitled to judgment on the merits. While Employment Division v. Smith generally holds that neutral laws of general applicability do not automatically exempt religiously motivated actions, the Court found Smith distinguishable because it did not involve communicative activity or implicate the church autonomy doctrine. Citing Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, the Court reaffirmed that the church autonomy doctrine protects a church's right to independence from secular control in matters of internal governance, faith, and doctrine. Applying Indiana's blacklisting statute and tort law to penalize truthful communication and coordination among church officials, especially when such actions are consistent with ecclesiastical directives like Ex Corde Ecclesiae (which encourages cooperation between Catholic universities and dioceses) and do not involve an independently illegal act, would constitute excessive entanglement and violate the Free Exercise Clause. Brazauskas did not claim the disclosures were false, nor did she prove any illegal conduct by the Diocese. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Sullivan, Justice
No, the trial court had jurisdiction, and while the plaintiff's allegations of blacklisting and interference are factually weak, the Diocese is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Justice Sullivan agreed with the majority that the trial court had jurisdiction but disagreed that the church autonomy doctrine should grant the Diocese summary judgment. He emphasized Employment Division v. Smith's principle that the First Amendment rarely bars applying neutral, generally applicable laws to religiously motivated actions. He argued that Indiana's blacklisting statute and common law tort of interference are neutral laws of general applicability. He contended that the majority's reliance on a 'communicative activity' exception in Smith is misapplied and that the continued vitality of the church autonomy doctrine after Smith is questionable, especially for non-ministerial employees. He noted that the Supreme Court cases applying the church autonomy doctrine involved laws that were neither neutral nor generally applicable, unlike the laws at issue here. Justice Sullivan asserted that courts can resolve such disputes using neutral principles of law without delving into religious dogma, particularly since Brazauskas's prospective position did not involve ministerial duties.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application and scope of the church autonomy doctrine in Indiana, particularly post-Employment Division v. Smith. It establishes that even after Smith limited religious exemptions from neutral laws, the church autonomy doctrine remains a robust defense for religious institutions against claims arising from internal, truthful communications and administrative decisions consistent with church policy, so long as no independent illegal act is involved. The decision underscores the judiciary's deference to religious institutions in their internal governance, especially when secular review would lead to excessive entanglement. This could influence future cases involving employment disputes or institutional decisions within religious organizations, potentially broadening protections for churches against civil litigation for actions taken within their internal administrative and communicative structures.
