F.G. v. MacDonell
150 N.J. 550, 696 A.2d 697, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 222 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A clergy member who engages in a sexual relationship with a parishioner during the course of a pastoral counseling relationship may be liable for breach of fiduciary duty, a secular tort claim that avoids the First Amendment's prohibition on excessive government entanglement with religion that would be posed by a claim for clergy malpractice.
Facts:
- F.G. was a parishioner at All Saints Episcopal Church.
- From April 1992 through the end of 1993, F.G. sought and received pastoral counseling from the church's rector, Reverend Alex MacDonell.
- During this counseling relationship, MacDonell, aware that F.G. was vulnerable, induced her into a sexual relationship.
- After MacDonell retired, F.G. met with his successor, Reverend Fletcher Harper, on March 31, 1994, to discuss MacDonell's conduct.
- At the time of her meeting with Harper, F.G. had recently been receiving inpatient care at a psychiatric hospital and had attempted suicide five days prior.
- Following their meeting, Harper published an open letter and delivered a sermon to the parishioners, identifying F.G. and describing her relationship with MacDonell without her consent.
- Harper's communications allegedly mischaracterized the situation as a 'voluntary romantic relationship' rather than an abusive one.
Procedural Posture:
- F.G. sued Reverend MacDonell and Reverend Harper in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division (trial court).
- The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing F.G. had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The Law Division granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the claims for clergy malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
- F.G. appealed to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for trial.
- MacDonell and Harper (appellants) then appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey (the state's highest court).
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 a parishioner state a valid cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against a clergyman who induces the parishioner into an inappropriate sexual relationship during a pastoral counseling relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
Yes. A parishioner states a valid cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against a clergyman under these circumstances. The court rejects a cause of action for 'clergy malpractice' because it would require a court to define a religious standard of care, which would unconstitutionally entangle the judiciary in religious doctrine in violation of the First Amendment. In contrast, a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is a secular claim based on neutral principles of law. A fiduciary relationship arises when one party places trust and confidence in another who is in a dominant position, such as a parishioner seeking counseling from a clergy member. Engaging in sexual misconduct with a vulnerable parishioner during counseling is a breach of that trust, independent of any specific religious doctrine. The court held that the claim against MacDonell could proceed and that the claim against Harper for his public disclosures could also proceed if, on remand, the trial court determined it could adjudicate the claim using neutral principles without becoming entangled in church doctrine.
Dissenting - O'Hern, J.
No. A parishioner does not state a valid cause of action under these circumstances. The majority incorrectly makes conduct tortious solely because the defendant is a clergyman, which violates the Establishment Clause. The underlying conduct—a consensual sexual relationship between adults—is not otherwise illegal or tortious under secular law. By allowing a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the court is essentially creating a 'clergy malpractice' tort under a different name and is imposing civil liability based on a violation of the Episcopal Church's religious tenets. This action puts 'the weight of the State' behind religious standards, thereby establishing a state-endorsed religion, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial distinction between claims of 'clergy malpractice,' which courts almost universally reject as unconstitutional, and 'breach of fiduciary duty.' By grounding the cause of action in the secular, pre-existing tort of breach of fiduciary duty, the court created a viable path for plaintiffs to seek redress for sexual misconduct by clergy without forcing courts to define religious standards of care. This 'neutral principles of law' approach allows accountability while respecting the First Amendment's religion clauses. The ruling provides a framework for future cases, signaling that the special trust inherent in a pastoral counseling relationship creates secular legal duties that, if breached, can give rise to liability.
Unlock the full brief for F.G. v. MacDonell