Erdman v. Church

Decision Date28 July 2010
Docket NumberNo. 40247-5-II.,40247-5-II.
Citation156 Wash.App. 827,234 P.3d 299
PartiesAngela ERDMAN, Appellant,v.CHAPEL HILL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; Mark J. Toone, individually; and the marital community of Mark J. Toone and Jane Doe Toone, Respondents.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robin Williams Phillips, Sean Vincent Small, Lasher Holzapfel Sperry & Ebberson PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.

Elizabeth Pike Martin, Gordon Thomas Honeywell et al., William A. Coats, Daniel C. Montopoli, Attorneys at Law, Tacoma, WA, for Respondents.

Elizabeth Pike Martin, Gordon Thomas Honeywell et al., Tacoma, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Presbytery of Olympia.

HOUGHTON, J.P.T.1

¶ 1 Angela Erdman appeals the trial court's order dismissing her claims against Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church (Church) and its pastor, Mark Toone. She argues that the trial court erred in limiting discovery and in granting summary judgment. She also argues that RCW 49.60.040(11), the religious employer exemption under chapter 49.60 RCW, the Washington Law against Discrimination (WLAD), violates the state and federal constitutions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

¶ 2 In 2003, Erdman became a Church elder. As an elder, she took ordination vows in which she agreed to the Church's dispute resolution and disciplinary procedures.

¶ 3 In 2005, the Church hired Erdman as its Executive for Stewardship. The Church's job description for this position sets forth duties such as assisting with the development of the Church's vision, goals, and strategies; providing strategic leadership; assisting with decisions about the Church's financial and development strategies and goals; and creating a major donor development plan for the Church. The position did not require candidates to be an elder or to belong to the Church.

¶ 4 According to Erdman, her job generally involved developing the Church's annual budget, including managing an accounting and finance team; managing a department “responsible for all “accounting, payroll, tax, pricing, and banking functions;” and providing business case analysis, reviews, reports, and income statements to the Church and its lenders. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 317. The Church did not authorize her to administer sacraments or to conduct religious services as part of her position.

¶ 5 This case arises from Erdman's belief that tours of religious and historical sites led by Toone, the Church's senior pastor, possibly jeopardized the Church's tax exempt status. In September 2007, Erdman asked Toone to discuss her concerns about the tours. He assured her that the tours comported with the Church's mission and that many clergy followed this common ministry practice. He told her that he had also read documents she supplied regarding the issue and had discussed the matter with his accountant, who advised that the tours did not threaten the Church's tax exempt status.

¶ 6 On October 16, 2007, Toone sent Erdman an email stating that discussions between his and the Church's accountant assured him that the tours were proper and that he wanted to “close the loop” on the issue. CP (filed Oct. 28, 2009) at 829. Erdman responded twice, requesting Toone meet with her to discuss the tours.

¶ 7 On October 17, Toone met with Erdman. According to her, Toone stormed into her office; slammed the door; and proceeded to harass, physically intimidate, and verbally abuse her for 25 minutes.2 Toone told her that the tours were proper, that her continued questioning was insubordination, and that she had unfairly impugned his reputation. That same day, she notified the Church's human resource director that she would not return to work in the near future. She also submitted a written complaint against Toone to the Church's human resource director.3 On October 29, she took formal medical leave.

¶ 8 To resolve the dispute, Toone suspended all promotional activity for an upcoming tour and agreed to turn the matter over to the Church's governing body, the Session. A Session Committee, eventually comprising of five Church elders, met with Erdman to hear her concerns, review the tours, and address the interpersonal issues between her and Toone.

¶ 9 On November 30, Erdman contacted the Church, stating that her doctor had cleared her to return to work. The Church responded by placing her on administrative leave with pay, pending the Session Committee's investigation. In December, before the Session Committee completed its investigation, Erdman filed a grievance against Toone with the Presbytery of Olympia (Presbytery), the regional governing body of the Presbyterian Church. She based her grievance on her interpretation of the tour issue and on Toone's physical intimidation; verbal abuse; and threats about her job, including placing her on administrative leave.

¶ 10 On December 27, the Session Committee issued a report concluding that Toone properly conducted his tours and that he did not harass or intimidate Erdman. The Session Committee also concluded that Erdman's implied threats through her attorney, false statements, and dissemination of disparaging emails throughout the investigation violated her ordination vows and the Church's scriptural teachings. Based on the Session Committee's conclusions and recommendation, the Church terminated Erdman's employment on December 31.

¶ 11 In January 2008, Erdman resubmitted her grievance to the Presbytery using its proper Form No. 26. In her Form No. 26 grievance, she accused Toone of violating scripture and Church law in (1) leading the tours, (2) physically intimidating her, (3) verbally abusing and harassing her, and (4) retaliating against her. Although in her Form No. 26 grievance, she did not set forth specific allegations against the Church, she claimed that Toone worked with the Session to prevent “full disclosure of truth” regarding the tours and that “significant portions” of the Session Committee's report bore “false witness and distortion of truth.” CP (filed Oct. 28, 2009) at 845-46.

¶ 12 In response to Erdman's Form No. 26 grievance, the Presbytery appointed an Investigative Committee. After reviewing the matter, the Investigative Committee concluded that Erdman could not substantiate her allegations and declined to “fil[e] charges” against Toone. CP (filed Oct. 28, 2009) at 848. The Presbyterian Church's Book of Order (2007-2009) reserved Erdman's right to appeal the Investigative Committee's decision.

¶ 13 Erdman did not appeal. Instead, she sued Toone 4 and the Church. Toone and the Church moved for summary judgment. In response, Erdman amended her complaint, raising state law claims based on (1) negligent retention, (2) negligent supervision, (3) violations of the WLAD, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (6) wrongful discharge, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) retaliation, and (9) wrongful withholding of wages. Her amended complaint also raised federal law claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on (1) religious and sexual discrimination, (2) harassment, (3) hostile work environment, and (4) retaliation. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

¶ 14 Before the trial court ruled on the summary judgment motion, Erdman moved to compel the deposition of an Investigative Committee member and production of that Committee's investigation documents. The Church, Toone, and the Presbytery objected, arguing that granting the motions to compel would interfere with the Church's constitutionally protected authority to resolve Church discipline matters in ecclesiastical tribunals.5

¶ 15 The trial court reviewed the Investigative Committee's documents in camera.6 It found that the First Amendment protected the Investigative Committee's thought processes contained in the documents and that Erdman had failed to demonstrate the required necessity for discovery. Although the trial court denied Erdman's motion to compel production of the documents, it granted her motion to compel the deposition of an Investigative Committee member. In doing so, it noted that no inquiry could be made into the Investigative Committee's thought processes. The trial court also found that the documents established that the Investigative Committee had considered each of Erdman's Form No. 26 grievance allegations.

¶ 16 After the deposition was taken, the Church and Toone renewed their motion for summary judgment. They argued that Erdman was a pastor and the ministerial exception 7 applied depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving the relationship between the Church and its ministers. They further argued that the WLAD exempts religious organizations from its prohibitions.

¶ 17 After hearing argument, the trial court stated that it lacked sufficient facts to decide whether Erdman was a minister and declined to rule in the defendant's favor on the ministerial exception.8 It further dismissed Erdman's intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage) claims because she failed to meet the relevant legal standards.

¶ 18 Relying on the Division One decision in Elvig v. Ackles, 123 Wash.App. 491, 98 P.3d 524 (2004), the trial court also addressed the viability of certain claims under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.9 It dismissed all claims that were based on facts that had been set forth in Erdman's Form No. 26 grievance. The trial court stated that “the decisions made by the [ecclesiastical] tribunal and the matters decided by the tribunal, claims based on those facts are barred.” Verbatim Transcript of Proceedings at 25.

¶ 19 As a result, the trial court dismissed Erdman's negligent retention, negligent supervision, wrongful discharge, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and federal law claims that were based on facts set...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Certification from the U.S. Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Wash. in Larry C. Ockletree v. Franciscan Health Sys., Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 6 février 2014
    ...employed in a secular position, was dismissed on the recommendation of the church tribunal. Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, 156 Wash.App. 827, 234 P.3d 299 (2010)( Erdman I),rev'd on other grounds by Erdman, 175 Wash.2d 659, 286 P.3d 357 (2012)( Erdman II). Erdman challenged the ......
  • Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, 84998–6.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 4 octobre 2012
    ...of her negligent supervision, negligent retention, and Title VII claims against Chapel Hill. Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, 156 Wash.App. 827, 234 P.3d 299 (2010). Chapel Hill and Dr. Toone (together Chapel Hill, unless otherwise specified) then sought discretionary review.ANALY......
  • Donelson v. Providence Health & Serv., CV–10–157–EFS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of Washington
    • 14 octobre 2011
    ...457 F.3d 1079, 1080 (9th Cir.2006) (declining to reach federal constitutional arguments); Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, 156 Wash.App. 827, 848–50, 234 P.3d 299 (2010) (rejecting Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection challenge and not reaching state Privileges and Immunities arg......
  • Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, 84998-6
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 4 octobre 2012
    ...there was not enough evidence on the record to decide the question. Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, 156 Wn. App. 827, 837 n.8, 234 P.3d 299 (2010). My review of the record persuades me that conclusion is correct. Whether Pastor Toone's status as a minister would bar these claims ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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