B.B. v. Methodist Church of Shelbina, ED 104969

Decision Date19 December 2017
Docket NumberNo. ED 104969,ED 104969
Citation541 S.W.3d 644
Parties B.B., Appellant, v. METHODIST CHURCH OF SHELBINA, MISSOURI, and Missouri Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, Respondents.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Judge

B.B. ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Methodist Church of Shelbina, Missouri ("the Shelbina Church" or "the Church") and the Missouri Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church ("the Conference") (collectively, "Respondents") on Appellant's action seeking compensatory and punitive damages relating to sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of the Shelbina Church's former youth director. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The Uncontroverted Facts Giving Rise to this Appeal

This appeal involves claims against two entities within the United Methodist Church. The first is the Shelbina Church, a local church which is comprised of an autonomous and self-governing congregation. The Church is a separate and distinct Missouri non-profit corporation.

The Conference, a Missouri non-profit corporation, provides structure for the practice of "conferencing" for the clergy and lay members of the United Methodist Church. Clergy and lay members of local churches are Conference members, not the local churches themselves. The Conference only manages and supervises activities that it organizes; it has no supervisory authority over local churches. Specifically relevant to this appeal, the Conference has no supervisory authority over hiring and firing decisions of local United Methodist churches, including those of the Shelbina Church.

1. The Shelbina Church's Hiring of Christopher Sprinkel

In 2003 or 2004, the administrative board for the Shelbina Church decided the Church needed to hire a full-time youth director. The position was advertised, and the Church received applications from several interested candidates. One of these applicants was Christopher Sprinkel, who provided the Shelbina Church with his resume and a reference letter. Although Sprinkel's most recent employer listed on the resume was the Sugar Creek United Methodist Church, the Shelbina Church did not contact his supervisor or any other member of that church. Further, the Shelbina Church did nothing to determine the accuracy of the information contained in Sprinkel's resume.

During the hiring process, the Shelbina Church's pastor, Virgil Clow ("Pastor Clow"), obtained a criminal background check on Sprinkel from a company called ScreenNow. The ScreenNow search revealed "[n]o record found" on a "State Sexual Offender Search in [Illinois]" and "[n]o record found" on a "National Criminal File Search." The Church relied on the ScreenNow report although it included a disclaimer that accuracy was not guaranteed.

After applications for the youth director position were collected and reviewed by Pastor Clow, they were passed along to the Church's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee. The Pastor-Parish Relations Committee then reviewed the applications, conducted interviews of three applicants, and ultimately selected Sprinkel for the job. The decision to hire a youth director, and specifically to hire Sprinkel, was made by members of the Shelbina Church without knowledge or involvement of the Conference.

2. Sprinkel's Employment with the Shelbina Church

Sprinkel began working as the Shelbina Church's youth director in approximately June 2004. Sprinkel was assisted in this position by the assistant youth director, Dee Ide, and was supervised by Pastor Clow on behalf of the Shelbina Church.

Sprinkel's duties included planning and coordinating children's and youth programs and activities with a goal towards growing the Church's youth ministry so as to ultimately expand its membership as a whole. Sprinkel's job as the youth director contained a religious component as it involved educating children on the religious doctrine of the United Methodist Church, planning literature for the youth to study, praying with the children, and reading scripture from the Bible.

To effectuate the position's goals and duties, Sprinkel established an after-school youth program at the Shelbina Church that was held every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during the school year. The after-school program was designed to give youth of the Church a place to go and "hang out" after school. Sprinkel also conducted a more formal youth group on Sunday evenings, which had a greater focus on religious studies than the after-school program. Additionally, every fifth Sunday of a month was designated "Youth Sunday" and Sprinkel gave the sermon to the full congregation.

The Shelbina Church determined Sprinkel's continued employment as the youth director would be conditioned upon being "Safe Sanctuaries" certified. The Conference, which among other things, conducts statewide meetings and camping trips for youth, developed the Safe Sanctuaries certification program to screen and train adults who worked or volunteered at Conference events to help ensure the proper care and treatment of the children or youth who attend those events. The Safe Sanctuaries program was also offered as a model to local churches to help them develop their own policies and programs to prevent child abuse. While Safe Sanctuaries certification requires, in addition to training, that all persons participating in Conference events submit to a background screening, the screening "was intended to only be used as a screening device for Conference activities." The Safe Sanctuaries program was not intended to be used by local churches to screen their own employees or volunteers for non-Conference activities, and the Conference instructed churches not to use it for non-Conference purposes. However, the Conference knew local churches were disregarding this warning and using the Safe Sanctuaries program to screen their own employees.

Sprinkel went through the Safe Sanctuaries program after he was hired by the Shelbina Church. His information was submitted to the Safe Sanctuaries program, and a background check was obtained by the Conference which disclosed: no criminal history or sex offender registration information on file with the Missouri State Highway Patrol; no employee disqualification list information on file with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services; no employee disqualification registry on file with the Missouri Department of Mental Health; and no child abuse or neglect information on file with the Missouri Department of Social Services. Sprinkel was also required to submit three reference forms to the Conference, including one from his employer and two additional references. Sprinkel submitted reference forms completed by Pastor Clow, who was his supervisor at the time he underwent the screening, as well as Allen Hickerson and Shawn Burnley. Each form submitted to the Conference rated Sprinkel as "excellent" or "good" in character, morality, ability to relate to youths, and ability to relate to children.1 The Conference took no steps to follow up on the information contained in the reference forms, but instead accepted all positive or negative responses on the form and determined Sprinkel was Safe Sanctuaries certified.

In November 2004, the Shelbina Church adopted its own Safe Sanctuary policy ("the Policy"). Among other guidelines, the Policy included a provision that two adults should always be present during activities where youth or children were present. Pastor Clow took steps to enforce this Policy, such as checking on youth activities and questioning volunteers to ensure they were never alone with the children or youth. Sprinkel was aware of this Policy.

3. Appellant's Interactions with Sprinkel and the Incident Giving Rise to Appellant's Claims

Sometime in the fall of 2005, Appellant began attending the Shelbina Church's after-school youth program, where Appellant would see Sprinkel approximately one or two times per week. Appellant, who was twelve years old at the time, attended the after-school program because his friends went, it was fun, and he could play video games and basketball.

On the afternoon of January 6, 2006, Appellant's school was released early that day, so Sprinkel invited Appellant to come to his house to play video games until it was time to go to the Church's after-school program. Although Sprinkel's wife was present when Appellant first arrived, she left shortly thereafter to run an errand. During the time Sprinkel was alone with Appellant, Sprinkel showed Appellant pornography on the computer and touched Appellant's genitals. Immediately after, Appellant left Sprinkel's house, went home, and reported the incident to his father. Based on Sprinkel's actions against Appellant on January 6, 2006, Sprinkel was convicted by a jury of first-degree child molestation.

4. Information Discovered after Sprinkel's Molestation of Appellant

After the allegations against Sprinkel came to light, Pastor Clow's wife, who also served as the Shelbina Church's secretary, conducted an internet search about Sprinkel. Ms. Clow found articles written before Sprinkel was hired by the Church that were about a prior criminal case filed against Sprinkel in the Circuit Court of Logan County, Illinois. Although Sprinkel was acquitted in the case, it involved an incident of sexual molestation of a child.

After the incident involving Appellant occurred, Pastor Clow held meetings with some of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Doe v. Marianist Province of U.S., ED107767
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 2019
    ...has been considered and consistently rejected by the Missouri Court of Appeals. See, e.g., B.B. v. Methodist Church of Shelbina, Missouri, 541 S.W.3d 644, 654-56 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017); John Doe B.P. v. Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, 432 S.W.3d 213, 219 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014); Doe ......
  • Spencer v. Am. Airlines, Inc., ED 105809
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2018
    ...and General LawOur Court’s review of a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment is de novo. B.B. v. Methodist Church of Shelbina, Missouri , 541 S.W.3d 644, 650 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Summary judgment is proper "where the moving party has demonstrated, on the basis of facts as to whi......
  • G.W.G. v. A.D.N.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 2017
    ... ... Mother is employed as a janitor at a local Christian church; Father is self-employed as a farmer. Mother and Father ... ...
  • Ross v. Scott, ED 107725
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 10, 2019
    ...of Review Our Court’s review of a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment is de novo. B.B. v. Methodist Church of Shelbina, Missouri , 541 S.W.3d 644, 650 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). "Summary judgment is proper only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT