Rev. Dr. William David Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburg
Decision Date | 22 August 2017 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-1599 |
Parties | REV. DR. WILLIAM DAVID LEE, Plaintiff, v. SIXTH MOUNT ZION BAPTIST CHURCH OF PITTSBURG d/b/a SIXTH MOUNT ZION MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Hon. Nora Barry Fischer
This case involves an employment dispute between a Pastor and the Church that hired him to lead it and then terminated his employment. Specifically, Rev. Dr. William David Lee ("Plaintiff," "Rev. Lee" or "Pastor") sued for breach of a written contract of employment, naming as defendants the Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburg1 d/b/a the Sixth Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church ("Defendant" or "the "Church"), as well as eleven of its deacons, whom he sued individually.2 (Docket No. 1). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 76). The Court held argument on the matter on May 12, 2017. (Docket No. 92).3
Plaintiff's Motion has been fully briefed by the parties in accordance with Local Rule 56. After reviewing the filings of the parties, including the Complaint, the Church's Amended Answer, Lee's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, the Church's Response in Opposition, Lee's Concise Statement of Material Facts, the Church's Responsive Concise Statement of Material Facts, and the transcript of oral argument, and considering the standards for granting such a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) and the matters addressed before the Court at the hearing on May 12, 2017, including matters raised and addressed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), namely application of the ministerial exception under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and excessive entanglement under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, Plaintiff's motion will be denied and this matter will be dismissed for the following reasons.
The Court must first address a matter regarding the parties' filings related to the concise statement of facts before addressing the relevant facts for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. Lee, as the moving party, filed his concise statement of material facts. The Church, as the nonmoving party, responded admitting certain facts, denying certain facts, and providing its own concise statement of facts in response with supporting documentation. Lee, for whatever reason, did not file any response to the Church's concise statement of facts.
Local Civil Rule of Court 56.B.1 requires that the party moving for summary judgment file a separate concise statement of material facts and that the party cite "to a particular pleading, deposition, answer to interrogatory, admission on file or other part of the record supporting theparty's statement, acceptance, or denial of the material fact." LCvR 56.B.1. The moving party also must file an appendix with the documents supporting that party's concise statement of material facts. LCvR 56.B.3. The opposing party is to provide a separately filed concise statement admitting or denying the facts in the moving party's concise statement, LCvR 56.C.1.a, setting forth the basis for any denial with reference to the record, LCvR 56.C.1.b, and providing any additional material facts that are necessary for the court's ruling on the motion. LCvR 56.C.1.c. Local Civil Rule of Court 56.E specifically provides that the facts claimed to be undisputed and material in "the moving party's Concise Statement of Material Facts or in the opposing party's Responsive Concise Statement, which are claimed to be undisputed, will for the purpose of deciding the motion for summary judgment be deemed admitted unless specifically denied or otherwise controverted by a separate concise statement of the opposing party." LCvR 56.E (emphasis added).
The Church supported their concise statements of fact with sufficient evidentiary materials in their appendix in support of their denials and their stated facts, (Docket Nos. 115, 121), in compliance with Local Civil Rule of Court 56.B.1 and 56.B.3. Rev. Lee, however, did not respond to the Church's supported statement of facts. Under these circumstances, in accordance with Local Civil Rule of Court 56.E, and for purposes of the present motion for summary judgment, the Church's Fact Nos. 23-49 provided in its response to Lee's Facts and the additional facts provided in response to Lee's Fact Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 13 will be deemed admitted by Rev. Lee. See 714 Ventures, Inc. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P., No. CV 15-925, 2016 WL 5919934, at *1 n. 1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2016) ( ).
According to the Complaint and Charter of Incorporation attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint, the Church is a longstanding church in Pittsburgh, received its original Charter of Incorporation in 1915, , and is overseen by its Pastor and Deacon Board. (Docket No. 1 at ¶ 19). On December 1, 2012 the Deacon Board recommended Rev. Lee for the position of Pastor. (Docket No. 83 at ¶ 1; Docket No. 87 at ¶ 1). The Church's Findings Committee presented a "Point-by-Point Report" on Rev. Lee and the Church's Pulpit Committee recommended Rev. Lee for the position of "Pastor of the Church" at a December 1, 2012, meeting called by the Findings Committee. . On December 12, 2012, the Church voted unanimously to accept Rev. Lee as Pastor of the Church, (Docket No. 83 at ¶ 4 & Ex. A [76-3 at 2, 5]; Docket No. 87 at ¶ 4). On or about March 2013, the Church retained the legal services of Attorney Candace Ragin ("Attorney Ragin") of the Law Firm of Candace Ragin, LLC, to provide various legal services to the Church, including the drafting of an agreement between the Board of Deacons and the Church's new Pastor, Rev. Lee, regarding his employment ("Employment Agreement" or "contract"). (Docket No. 83 at ¶ 5 & Ex. C; Docket No. 87 at ¶ 5). On March 20, 2013, the Employment Agreement was executed by Rev. Lee, Timothy Ralston, then Chairman of the Church's Deacon Board, and Jimmy Barley, then Trustee of the Church. (Docket No. 83 at ¶¶ 6, 11 & Ex. C; Docket No. 87 at ¶¶ 6, 11, 23). The parties understood and agreed that the Church congregation ("the Congregation") had to approve the Employment Agreement in order for it to become effective. (Docket No. 83 at ¶ 6; Docket No. 87 at ¶¶ 6, 24; Docket No. 88-1 E).
The Employment Agreement5 contains the following pertinent provisions:
To continue reading
Request your trial