Trice v. Burress

• Decision Date: 14 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 102,332. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.,102,332. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.
• Citation: 137 P.3d 1253,2006 OK CIV APP 79
• Parties: Todd TRICE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Jeff L. BURRESS and Wesley United Methodist Church of Shawnee, Defendants/Appellees, The United Methodist Church-Oklahoma Area, Defendant.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

137 P.3d 1253

2006 OK CIV APP 79

Todd TRICE, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Jeff L. BURRESS and Wesley United Methodist Church of Shawnee, Defendants/Appellees The United Methodist Church-Oklahoma Area, Defendant.

No. 102,332. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

April 14, 2006.

Certiorari Denied June 19, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma; Honorable John D. Gardner, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Michael E. Grant, Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellant.

Peter T. Van Dyke, Mark Spencer, Amy D. White, McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma City, OK, for Appellees.

Opinion by Larry JOPLIN, Judge.

¶ 1 Plaintiff/Appellant Todd Trice (Plaintiff) seeks review of the trial court's order granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendants/Appellees Jeff L. Burress and Wesley United Methodist Church of Shawnee (individually, Burress and Wesley, or collectively, Church) on Plaintiff's defamation (slander) claim. In this proceeding, Plaintiff asserts the trial court erred as a matter of both fact and law in so disposing of his claim. Having reviewed the record, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

¶ 2 Burress served as Senior Minister at Wesley. Plaintiff was a member of the Wesley congregation and Wesley employed him as Youth Director. On or about August 21, 2002, Wesley's governing board voted to terminate Plaintiff's employment.

¶ 3 On August 21, 2003, Plaintiff filed his petition to commence the instant action. In the petition, Plaintiff alleged that he "was employed as the Youth Director at Wesley until August 21, 2002 when he was terminated for reasons which are not clear to him;" but, that "[s]ubsequent to that time, Burress, acting in his capacity as Senior Minister of Wesley, told persons in the Church and in the community that [Plaintiff] was terminated from his job because he was questioning his sexuality." Plaintiff asserted Burress' statements constituted slander and claimed actual and punitive damages for defamation.

¶ 4 Church answered, denying the statements were made. Alternatively, Church asserted the statements were true or made on a conditionally privileged occasion.

¶ 5 Church then filed a motion for summary judgment. To the motion, Church attached evidentiary materials showing Plaintiff's continued membership at Wesley after his termination, and the deposition testimony of Lauren Heer, a young member of Wesley, allegedly the only person to whom Burress published the "questioning his sexuality" statement some six months after Plaintiff's termination.

¶ 6 In support of its motion, Church asserted, inter alia, that the statement by Burress concerned the internal discipline of an existing member, and that the statement was published by Burress to only one member of the Church, all other publications having been by Plaintiff. So, said Church, it was shielded from liability by the free-exercise-of-religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, Hadnot v. Shaw, 1992 OK 21, ¶ 26, 826 P.2d 978, 987¹; Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 1989 OK 8, ¶ 21, 775 P.2d 766, 774.² Alternatively, Church argued, the alleged statement by Burress to other member(s) of the congregation regarding Plaintiff's termination constituted privileged communication(s) on matters of common interest. See, 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander, § 340.³ See also, Restatement of Laws, Second, Torts 2d, § 596 (1977), comment (e).⁴

¶ 7 Plaintiff responded, objecting to Church's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff contested the allegation of a single publication by Burress, pointing to the deposition testimony of Ms. Heer which arguably showed the presence of one or two other young members of the congregation at the time Burress made the alleged defamatory statement. Plaintiff also adduced notes from the meeting of Wesley's governing board arguably demonstrating his termination for breach of policy and procedure governing the conduct and financing of youth outings, and further argued that Burress' statement did not consequently concern the imposition of discipline for violation of any ecclesiastical doctrine of the Methodist Church. So, said Plaintiff, Burress's statement stood outside First Amendment protections. Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶ 34, 775 P.2d at 779, fn. 48.

¶ 8 On consideration of the parties' submissions and argument, the trial court granted judgment to Church, finding:

. . . [A]s a matter of law, the alleged statement attributed to Defendants is not slander per se; and ... the alleged statement attributed to Defendant Rev. Jeff Burress was allegedly made to a church member about a terminated staff member, who was also a church member; accordingly, the alleged statement is constitutionally protected. See Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 1989 OK 8, 775 P.2d 766.

Plaintiff appeals,⁵ and the matter stands submitted for accelerated review on the trial court record.⁶

¶ 9 "Summary judgment is appropriate only where there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Wathor v. Mutual Assur. Adm'rs, Inc., 2004 OK 2, ¶ 4, 87 P.3d 559, 561. "As this decision involves purely legal determinations, our standard of review of a trial court's grant of summary judgment is de novo." Id. That is, "this Court will examine pleadings and evidentiary materials to determine what facts are material and whether there is substantial controversy as to one material fact," and "[w]e review all inferences and conclusions to be drawn from underlying facts contained in evidentiary materials in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Sperling v. Marler, 1998 OK 81, ¶ 3, 963 P.2d 577, 579; Wathor, 2004 OK 2, ¶ 4, 87 P.3d at 561. "If substantial controversy as to a material fact exists," or "[i]f the uncontroverted facts support legitimate inferences favoring well-pleaded theory of the party against whom the judgment is sought or if the judgment is contrary to substantive law, the judgment will be reversed." Sperling, 1998 OK 81, ¶ 3, 963 P.2d at 579; Wathor, 2004 OK 2, ¶ 4, 87 P.3d at 561.

¶ 10 "In order to recover for defamation, a private figure must prove (1) a false and defamatory statement, (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) either the actionability of the statement irrespective of special damage, or the existence of special damage caused by the publication." Mitchell v. Griffin Television, L.L.C., 2002 OK CIV APP 115, ¶ 5, 60 P.3d 1058, 1061. "A publication is actionable per se only when the language used is susceptible of but one meaning, and that an opprobrious one." Krebsbach v. Henley, 1986 OK 58, ¶ 18, 725 P.2d 852, 856. If the statement "has no overt opprobrious connotations," and "[a]ny defamatory meaning ... come[s] in the form of insinuation from the language," "[t]his places the allegation in the realm of slander per quod," requiring the pleading and proof of special damages. Krebsbach, 1986 OK 58, ¶¶ 18, 19, 725 P.2d at 856.

¶ 11 In the present case, Burress denied he ever made the complained-of statement, but Plaintiff presented evidentiary materials demonstrating a publication of the allegedly defamatory statement to at least one parishioner. But, Plaintiff neither plead nor presented evidentiary materials arguably demonstrating actionable special damages to support a claim of defamation per quod.⁷ For purposes of the following discussion only, however, we assume the statement was published and constitutes slander per se.

¶ 12 The free-exercise-of-religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a church the right, without fear of judicial interference, to impose on its members discipline for breach of ecclesiastical doctrine so long as the member remains a member of the church. Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶ 21, 775 P.2d at 774.⁸ Consequently, "[t]he First Amendment will protect and shield the religious body from [tort] liability for the activities carried on pursuant to the exercise of church discipline," and "[w]ithin the context of ecclesiastical discipline, churches enjoy an absolute privilege from scrutiny by the secular authority." Hadnot, 1992 OK 21, ¶ 26, 826 P.2d at 987; Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶ 21, 775 P.2d at 774. Only where the imposition of ecclesiastical discipline poses an immediate threat to "the public safety, peace or order" is the mantle of absolute constitutional privilege shed. Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶¶ 14, 18, 775 P.2d at 770-771, 773.

¶ 13 Plaintiff argued, however, that the First Amendment offered no protection to defamatory statements unrelated to church discipline. In support, Plaintiff pointed to both Guinn and Hadnot recognizing that, "`[u]nder the banner of the First Amendment provisions on religion, a clergyman may not with impunity defame a person, intentionally inflict serious emotional harm on a parishioner, or commit other torts,'" and that, "[a]t the point when the church-member relationship is severed through an affirmative act either of a parishioner's withdrawal or of excommunication by the ecclesiastical body, . . ., the absolute privilege from tort liability no longer attaches." Guinn, 1989 OK 8, ¶ 34, 775 P.2d at 779, fn. 48; Hadnot, 1992 OK 21, ¶ 32, 826 P.2d at 989. So, said Plaintiff, because Burress's statement came six months after the termination decision and did not accurately convey the governing board's professed reasons for his termination, the First Amendment bar recognized in Guinn and Hadnot did not apply.

¶ 14 We disagree. The statement of which Plaintiff complained related to the ostensible reason for his termination, conveyed from the pastor to a member of the congregation concerning the conduct of another member. At least one court has specifically held that statements by and between church members "relat...