Prince of Peace Lutheran Church v. Linklater
421 Md. 664, 2011 Md. LEXIS 574, 28 A.3d 1171 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's ministerial exception does not automatically bar all claims against religious organizations; it generally does not apply to claims of sexual harassment and retaliation that lack a doctrinal justification. The "continuing violation doctrine," under a "course of conduct" test, allows such claims to proceed even if some acts occurred outside the statute of limitations, provided at least one closely related act falls within the statutory period.
Facts:
- Mary Linklater was employed as the Music Director of Prince of Peace Lutheran Church.
- Linklater experienced sexual harassment from a fellow employee and Pastor Rufus S. Lusk III.
- Linklater reported the harassment to church officials.
- As a result of her complaints, Linklater experienced further harassment and retaliation.
- On March 4, 2001, Linklater discovered a photograph of herself, defaced with multiple stab marks through the head, eyes, and chest, posted on a bulletin board near her office in the church.
- By March 7, 2001, Linklater felt the work environment at Prince of Peace had become so hostile and hateful that she could not bring herself to come to work without a dramatic improvement in the environment.
- Pastor Lusk gave a speech to the congregation on February 4, 2001, in which he discussed Linklater's pending lawsuit, its impact on the church, and proclaimed his innocence of misconduct.
- Prince of Peace Lutheran Church had a written policy condemning sexual abuse or harassment by its personnel.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Linklater filed a sixteen-count complaint against Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Pastor Rufus S. Lusk III, Metropolitan Washington D.C. Synod, and Bishop Theodore Schneider in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (trial court).
- The Circuit Court, at a pretrial motions hearing, granted a motion to dismiss for several counts (4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) but denied it for others (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11), specifically rejecting statute of limitations arguments at that stage.
- A different Circuit Court judge granted summary judgment for Bishop Schneider and the Synod on all claims, citing the ministerial exception.
- The same Circuit Court judge granted summary judgment in part and denied in part for Prince of Peace and Pastor Lusk, dismissing Counts I, II, III, VII, and XI, but denying dismissal for Counts V, VI, and VIII.
- At trial, only Counts V (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) and VI (Invasion of Privacy and False Light) were submitted to the jury against Prince of Peace and Lusk; the injurious falsehood claim (Count VIII) resulted in a judgment for the Petitioners.
- The jury found Prince of Peace liable for IIED ($50,000 compensatory) and Lusk liable for IIED ($300,000 compensatory, $1,000,000 punitive), but found no liability for Invasion of Privacy/False Light.
- Following post-trial motions, the trial court concluded it had erred in admitting evidence of Lusk's financial means before a punitive damages finding and, after recusing itself, another Circuit Court judge granted the Church and Lusk a new trial on the IIED count.
- A fourth Circuit Court judge granted the Church's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Linklater's job performance and then granted renewed motions for summary judgment by the Church and Lusk.
- Linklater appealed to the Court of Special Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the IIED claim (Count V) as a matter of law, but reversed the dismissal of Counts I and III (Hostile Work Environment and Gender Discrimination) for Linklater, holding they were not time-barred due to the continuing violation rule and remanded these counts for further proceedings against Lusk and the Church.
- The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that Schneider and the Synod were not 'employers' under the Montgomery County Code, meaning Counts I and III could not be brought against them.
- The Court of Special Appeals ordered a remand for further proceedings on Counts I, III, and IV against Lusk, Counts I, III, IV, and XV against the Church, and Counts IV and XIV against Schneider and the Synod.
- Both Linklater (Respondent/Cross Petitioner) and the Church, Lusk, the Synod, and Schneider (Petitioners/Cross Respondents) sought review from the Maryland Court of Appeals.
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 "ministerial exception" bar sexual harassment and retaliation claims against a church and its officials, and is the "continuing violation doctrine" applicable to these claims when at least one retaliatory act occurs within the statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, J.
No, the ministerial exception does not apply to Linklater's hostile work environment sexual harassment and gender discrimination claims (Counts I and III) because there is no doctrinal justification for the alleged harassment. Yes, the "continuing violation doctrine" is applicable to these claims, saving them from the statute of limitations, based on a retaliatory act (the defaced photograph) occurring within the statutory period. The ministerial exception, rooted in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, prevents judicial inquiry into church governance or employment decisions driven by religious doctrine, but it does not broadly shield religious organizations from all secular laws, especially regarding conduct like sexual harassment that lacks a religious basis. Adjudicating hostile work environment and gender discrimination claims against the Church and Lusk does not require delving into ecclesiastical matters or questioning religious beliefs, particularly given the Church's own policy against harassment. However, claims like quid pro quo sexual harassment (Count II), retaliatory harassment/constructive discharge (Count IV), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V), negligent retention and supervision (Count X), and breach of contract claims (Counts XIV and XV) are barred because they would necessitate impermissible judicial inquiry into employment decisions or broader church governance. For the continuing violation doctrine, the court adopted the "course of conduct" test, which aligns with federal precedent and allows consideration of acts outside the limitations period if they are closely related to an act within the period. The act of stabbing and posting Linklater's photograph, occurring within the statutory period, constitutes a retaliatory act that connects to the earlier harassment, thus saving Counts I and III from being time-barred. Petitioners' arguments regarding individual liability, employer definition, and the constitutionality of the state statute were waived due to failure to raise them in the Circuit Court.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Adkins, J.
I agree with the majority that Counts I and III should proceed and are not time-barred. However, I disagree with the majority's overly broad interpretation of the ministerial exception, which wrongly leads to the dismissal of Linklater's retaliatory firing claim (Count IV) and other claims (Counts II, V, X, XIV, XV). The ministerial exception should be narrowly applied, only barring judicial review when employment decisions are genuinely "rooted in spiritual matters" or religious doctrine, not for general matters of "church governance." The Church did not offer a doctrinal or spiritual basis for the alleged retaliatory actions against Linklater, which should allow claims like retaliatory constructive discharge to proceed without infringing on the First Amendment. Furthermore, I contend that Pastor Lusk's speech to the congregation on February 4, 2001, should not be entirely protected by the ministerial exception. His remarks, which were personal in tone, explicitly not religious teaching, and aimed at swaying congregational opinion against Linklater regarding her lawsuit, fall outside the scope of protected religious communication. Therefore, this speech should be considered an admissible act of retaliation for purposes of the continuing violation doctrine, alongside the defaced photograph, to save Linklater's claims from the statute of limitations.
Analysis:
This case provides critical clarification on the boundaries of the ministerial exception, affirming that religious institutions are not entirely immune from secular employment laws, particularly for severe acts of sexual harassment and retaliation lacking doctrinal justification. The adoption of the "course of conduct" test for the continuing violation doctrine offers a pragmatic approach to assessing ongoing discriminatory and retaliatory actions. However, the ongoing tension between protecting religious autonomy and enforcing anti-discrimination principles is evident in the differing views on what constitutes "church governance" and when the exception should apply to employment decisions like retaliatory discharge. Future cases will likely continue to define the precise scope of the ministerial exception, especially concerning the type of claims that require courts to inquire into a church's internal affairs versus those that merely address secular misconduct.
