JULIE E. CARNES, District Judge.
This case is presently before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [20]; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or for Judgment on the Pleadings [43]; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [46]; Defendants' Request for Oral Arguments [47]; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [52]; Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [56]; and Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule [57].
The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and, for the foregoing reasons, the Court
This case arises out of a minister's disagreement with his bishop's decision to transfer him to a church where he did not wish to be assigned. Plaintiff, the Reverend William A. Hopkins, is a fully ordained Itinerant Elder in the African Methodist Episcopal Church ("AME Church" or "Church"). (Hopkins Dep. Excerpts at 21, attached as Ex. 4 to Defs.' Mot. Dismiss [43]; Compl. at 1, attached to Defs.' Notice of Removal as Ex. A.) He claims that defendants William Phillip DeVeaux and Charles W. Bennett, respectively the Presiding Bishop of the Church's Sixth Episcopal District and the Presiding Elder to the Atlanta North Georgia Conference of the Sixth Episcopal District, violated numerous state and federal laws when they reassigned plaintiff to a new church following allegations that he was guilty of sexual misconduct with a parishioner. While the overwhelming majority of plaintiff's claims arise out of state law, plaintiff is in federal court only because he also alleges that defendants violated federal age discrimination laws and plaintiff's due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The AME Church is a hierarchical church in which the individual churches are governed by a supreme ecclesiastical body. (Aff. of Bishop DeVeaux at ¶ 3, attached to Defs.' Mot. Dismiss [43] as Ex. 5.) Presiding over each episcopal district is a bishop. (Id. at SI 4.) Each episcopal district is then broken down into annual conferences, each of which is run by a presiding elder. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) The elders then supervise the pastors at the individual churches in their respective presiding elder district. (Id. at ¶ 7.) The episcopal districts, annual conferences, and presiding elder districts, as well as the individual churches and members, adhere to the same faith and doctrine as set forth in The Book of Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church ("The Book of Discipline"). (Id. at ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff has been employed by the AME Church since 1992, but has been a fully ordained "itinerant elder" since 1988. (Hopkins Dep. [43] at 21). In that time period, plaintiff has pastored a number of churches within the Church's Sixth Episcopal District, which encompasses Georgia. (Compl. [1] at 4.) Prior to the reassignment at issue, plaintiff was the pastor at the Cobb Bethel AME Church. (Compl. [1] at 2.)
Plaintiff's tenure at Cobb Bethel was not smooth, and he readily admits that his time there "was a period of conflict." (Hopkins Dep. Excerpts at 82, attached as Ex. 1 to Defs.' Mot. Dismiss [43].)
During the June 2009 Annual Conference, plaintiff was summoned to a meeting with defendant Bishop DeVeaux. (Compl. [1] at 2; Hopkins Dep. [43] at 88.) At this meeting, Bishop DeVeaux informed plaintiff that he had received a letter from a member of Cobb Bethel's congregation accusing plaintiff of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with another member of Cobb Bethel's congregation. (Compl. [1] at 2-3; Hopkins Dep. [43] at 89, 91.) Bishop DeVeaux then asked plaintiff whether or not he was having sex with
Initially, plaintiff was reassigned to the Oak Grove Church. (Hopkins Dep. [43] at 96; Compl. [1] at 5.) Plaintiff, however, immediately objected to this placement and was reassigned the next day to the Bethel Powersville Church. (Hopkins Dep. [43] at 97-99; Compl. [1] at 5.) Unfortunately, he was unhappy with that selection as well. Like Oak Grove, Bethel Powersville meets only two Sundays a month and is located roughly 100 miles away from plaintiff's home. (Hopkins Dep. [43] at 98-100; Compl. [1] at 5.) Further, as a result of his transfer, plaintiff's salary was reduced by over $1,000.00 per month. (Compl. [1] at 5.) Reluctantly, plaintiff agreed to go to Bethel Powersville. (Hopkins Dep. [43] at 98.)
At no point when he was discussing the letter or plaintiff's forthcoming reassignment did the bishop mention plaintiff's age. (Id. at 118.) Moreover, Bishop DeVeaux has never said anything directly to plaintiff about his age. (Id.) In fact, plaintiff does not even know the age of the pastor who replaced him at Cobb Bethel. (Id.)
Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit because he believes that defendants' decision to transfer him was improper and that, by not placing him in a church equal to or better than the Cobb Bethel location, it "breached the Pastor's Bill of Rights, found in The Book of Discipline". (Compl. [1] at 4.) Indeed, as evidenced by the following exchange, plaintiff would not have filed this lawsuit, absent the unwanted assignment,:
(Hopkins Dep. [43] at 172.)
Notwithstanding plaintiff's dissatisfaction with Bishop DeVeaux's selection, The Book of Discipline grants a bishop broad, almost plenary, authority in transferring a pastor, as a bishop is constrained only by his "godly judgment" as to what he "deem[s] necessary for the good of the church." Specifically, in Part VI, General Government Divisions and Authority, Section III, Authority of Active Bishops, The Book of Discipline provides:
(Bishop DeVeaux's Interrog. Resps., No. 8, attached to Defs.' Mot. Dismiss [43] as Ex. 6.) Indeed, plaintiff himself admits that pastors serve at the pleasure of the bishops and that The Book of Discipline confers sole authority on bishops to transfer pastors. (Hopkins Dep. [43] at 38-39,
That said, in Part XI, Judicial Administration, The Book of Discipline does allow for certain procedures whereby an individual can challenge a bishop's assignment or even have a hearing on allegations of sexual misconduct. (Aff. of Bishop DeVeaux [43] at ¶ 10.) However, there is no indication from the record that plaintiff ever sought to avail himself of these procedures.
Following his transfer, plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging that his transfer violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). In March 2010, the EEOC dismissed plaintiff's complaint because of its determination that there was "no jurisdiction due to ministerial exception." (See EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights, attached as an Ex. to Pl.'s Objection to Joint Preliminary Planning Report and Discovery [24].)
Notwithstanding his then ongoing EEOC complaint, in December 2009, plaintiff filed suit against defendants DeVeaux and Bennett
Plaintiff then proceeded to file a number of amended complaints, prompting this Court to sua sponte inform plaintiff that if he wished to file a third amended complaint, which added three more state law causes of action, he must seek leave of court to do so. (Order [16].) Plaintiff sought leave, (Pl.'s Mot. Amend Compl. [20].), but defendants objected to plaintiff's efforts, arguing that these attempted amendments were futile, as the ministerial exception deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's three new causes of action. Including the Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges fourteen separate causes of actions, only two of which—plaintiff's ADEA claim and due process claims—arise out of federal law.
Following the close of discovery, and pursuing the defense first raised in their opposition to plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint, defendants filed an unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, or for Judgment on the Pleadings [43]. Concurrently with that motion, defendants have also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [46], to which plaintiff has filed a response [51]. In addition to responding to defendants' motion, plaintiff has filed his own Motion for Summary Judgment [52]. However, because plaintiff's motion was filed two weeks after the deadline for filing such motions, defendants request that the Court strike it from the record [56]. Alternatively, defendants move the Court for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion [57].
Presently before the Court is Defendants' [Unopposed] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, or for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims are subject to dismissal, on their face, because
This doctrine has arisen out of the recognition that "[t]he relationship between an organized church and its ministers is its lifeblood. The minister is the chief instrument by which the church seeks to fulfill its purpose." E.E.O.C. v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Sch., 597 F.3d 769, 777 (6th Cir.2010) quoting McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553, 558-59 (5th Cir.1972). In essence, then, the ministerial exception acts to vindicate the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. Id. Indeed, the right of an institution to choose its ministers without government interference "underlies the well-being of [a] religious community" as the "perpetuation of a church's existence may depend upon those whom it selects to preach its values, teach its message, and interpret its doctrine ...." Rayburn v. Gen. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1167-68 (4th Cir. 1985).
It is clear that the ministerial exception defeats plaintiff's ADEA claim. As noted, the ministerial exception, which rests on the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, prohibits a church from being sued by its clergy in matters relating to internal governance and administration. See Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th Cir.2000). The exception is rooted in "a long-standing tradition that churches are to be free from government interference in matters of church governance and administration." Id. As such, any "attempt by the government to regulate the relationship between a church and its clergy would infringe upon the church's right to be the sole governing body of its ecclesiastical rules and religious doctrine." Id.
Gellington, itself, was a Title VII action brought by a minister in a Methodist Episcopal church who contended that his reassignment to a distant church was prompted by his assistance to another female minister who believed she was being sexually harassed by a supervisor. Plaintiff Gellington had helped this female minister an official complaint to church elders concerning the unwanted sexual overtures. The plaintiff's Title VII suit alleged that his transfer was done to retaliate against him.
In affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed that the ministerial exception precluded a Title VII action against a church by a member of its clergy. Id. at 1304. Although there appears to be no Eleventh Circuit case that addresses the applicability of the ministerial exception to an ADEA (age discrimination) claim, the principle is the same and, indeed, other circuits have so concluded. See Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria, 442 F.3d 1036 (7th Cir.2006); Minker v. Bait. Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354 (D.C.Cir.1990) (Mikva, J.). See also Sanchez v. Catholic Foreign Soc. of Am., 82 F.Supp.2d 1338 (M.D.Fla.1999) (Hodges, J.).
In addition, circuits outside the Eleventh have held that the ministerial exception,
Accordingly, the Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff's ADEA claim cannot proceed. The trickier question is whether dismissal on this ground should be based on Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(c).
In their assertion of the ministerial exception, the defendants have urged the Court to dismiss plaintiff's ADEA claim either pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, or, alternatively, pursuant to Rule 12(c), because, as a matter of law, plaintiff's ADEA claim cannot proceed.
The question whether the ministerial exception is jurisdictional in nature, and thereby robs a court of subject matter jurisdiction, or instead is akin to an affirmative defense and is thus subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (or, here Rule 12(c)),
According to the Hosanna-Tabor opinion, neither the Fifth nor the Eleventh Circuits have squarely addressed this question, but instead these circuits treat
There is an unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision that indicates that a dismissal based on the ministerial exception should be grounded in Rule 12(b)(1), not 12(b)(6). See McCants v. Alabama-West FL Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., 372 Fed.Appx. 39, 42 (11th Cir.2010). This Court does not find McCants persuasive for three reasons: (1) as an unpublished decision, arising from a non-argument calendar, it has no precedential effect;
In addition, the Supreme Court has recently taken several disapproving shots at dismissals that are indiscriminately termed as being based on jurisdictional grounds. In Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement in Title VII that a covered employer must have fifteen or more employees is not a jurisdictional requirement, but a substantive defense. In reaching this result, the Court noted that it and other courts have been "less than meticulous" in describing dismissals as based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, when those dismissals actually arose out of a plaintiff's inability to prove an element of his case on the merits. Id. at 511, 126 S.Ct. 1235. The Court reiterated its description of such decisions as "drive-by jurisdictional rulings." Id.
Likewise, in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010), in attempting to clarify the definition of a corporation's principle place of business for determining diversity subject matter jurisdiction, the Court criticized "[c]omplex jurisdictional tests [which] complicate a case, eating up time and money ...." Id. at 1193.
Further, in Henderson v. Shinseki, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1202, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), Justice Alito, writing for the unanimous Court, noted the practical ramifications of an imprecise use of the word "jurisdiction" in deciding whether to dismiss a case on that ground:
Id. at 1202.
Further, Justice Alito, explained:
Id. See also Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs and Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 584, 596, 175 L.Ed.2d 428 (2009) (recognizing that the word "jurisdiction" has been used by courts, including the Supreme Court, to convey "many, too many, meanings.")
While it can be easily applied in the case before this Court, which involves a minister, the test for determining whether the ministerial exception applies does not always lead to a readily apparent answer. This is so because the exception can sometimes, but not always, be applied to religious institution employees who are not ministers,
(citations omitted).
In determining whether to apply the doctrine, a court will focus on a plaintiff's functions and duties, as opposed to simply his or her title. Ross v. Metro. Church of God, 471 F.Supp.2d 1306, 1309 (N.D.Ga.2007) (citing Rayburn v. Gen. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1168 (4th Cir.1985)). "If `the employee's primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious
Thus, while broadly applied, the ministerial exception does not place religious employers wholly outside the reach of federal antidiscrimination statutes, or beyond the secular jurisdiction of civil courts. "For instance, the exception would not apply to employment decisions concerning purely custodial or administrative personnel." E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N.C., 213 F.3d 795, 801 (4th Cir. 2000). Similarly, a court would not allow a "local congregation of a hierarchical sect [to] seize[] the local church, change[] the locks, and declare[] itself an independent religious organization," nor would a church be allowed to designate all its employees as "ministers" to avoid minimum wage laws. Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria, 442 F.3d 1036, 1039 (7th Cir.2006) (internal citations omitted).
There is nothing wrong or unusual about a court-originated test that produces different answers depending on the factual scenario being examined. Yet, the complexity and uncertainty of such an undertaking means that there will often not be a certain or quick resolution of the question whether a particular court has the "adjudicatory capacity," to hear the particular case.
Assume, for example, that a church's organist sues under a federal employment statute and that it is not clear whether the ministerial exception would protect the religious employer from suit in the particular circuit. Assume further that the defendant church does not raise the ministerial exception in either a Rule 12(b)(1) or a 12(b)(6) motion, or in a motion for summary judgment. If the plaintiff receives a verdict in her favor after trial, the defendant, who never raised the ministerial exception, will be precluded from raising the exception on appeal only if the ministerial exception is deemed to be a substantive defense to the employment statute at issue. If, however, the ministerial exception is deemed to negate subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant would be able to lie in wait and raise the exception in the appellate court.
Indeed, if the exception is jurisdictional, the appellate court would be obliged to raise the issue on its own, and perhaps remand for further discovery (notwithstanding the fact that a trial has already been held)on matters that would inform a determination whether the exception should apply. Clearly, this is no way to run a railroad or an orderly judicial system.
Likewise, it is not clear how one would describe the dismissal of a claim subject to the ministerial exception when another federal claim not subject to that doctrine is raised in the complaint. For example, in this case, the plaintiff raised a second federal claim; albeit that claim is frivolous. Assume, however, that the plaintiff had raised a second federal claim for which the court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction. If the ministerial exception is jurisdictional,
Of more practical significance in this case is what would happen, when the case is remanded back to the state court on the state law claims, if this Court characterized its dismissal as being based on the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, as opposed to a determination that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
If the state court so construed the remand, it might decide that it could consider anew the ADEA claim, because this Court would have issued no actual ruling on the merits. Indeed, a state court clearly has the power to adjudicate ADEA claims. Nevertheless, a defendant sued pursuant to the ADEA has the right to remove that claim to federal court, as the ADEA is a federal statute and a claim for relief under that statute, even if unmeritorious, arises under federal law and can thus be removed. Clemmer v. Florida, 2005 WL 2656608 at *2 (N.D.Fla. Oct. 17, 2005) (Hinkle, J.).
Yet, if a state court deems a federal court's remand of an ADEA claim based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction to act as a green light for that state court to consider the claim on its merits, the defendant will have effectively been deprived of its ability to remove the federal claim to federal court. Perhaps, defendants' attorneys will arrive at some way to persuade the state court to the contrary, but characterizing the dismissal, here, as being based on "subject matter jurisdiction" would needlessly create confusion.
In Clemmer, supra, Judge Hinkle considered a somewhat related issue. There, the plaintiff had sued, in state court, the State of Florida for a violation of the ADEA, as well as a comparable Florida statute; the defendant State had removed the case to federal court. The State contended that it possessed both Eleventh Amendment immunity and sovereign immunity from suit pursuant to the ADEA.
Judge Hinkle concurred that, pursuant to Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000), the ADEA was not a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and hence a nonconsenting state could not be sued for ADEA violations. Nevertheless, he also agreed with the plaintiff that, pursuant to Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002), the State had, by removing the action to federal court, waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity against being sued in federal court.
(emphasis in original). Accordingly, Judge Hinkle determined that the case had been properly removed, based on the existence of the ADEA claim, and he dismissed the ADEA claim on its merits and remanded the remaining state law claim back to the Florida court.
Likewise, here, the Court concludes that it should characterize its dismissal of the ADEA claim as a dismissal on the merits. The ADEA is a federal statute. Accordingly, a defendant sued in state court has the right to remove a case containing that claim to federal court and the Court will have subject matter jurisdiction over the removed case. When the defendant in such a suit has a defense to the ADEA claim, whether it be the ministerial exception or some other defense, the Court will determine that defense on substantive grounds and will not consider that particular defense to be a challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, which has already been established by the removal of a federal claim. Therefore, the Court
The Fourteenth Amendment's protection of an individual's due process rights applies to state action, not private conduct. See Generally Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (requiring that alleged violations be under color of law.) There can be exceptions to this rule, when, for example, there is a symbiotic relationship between the private entity and the state; when the former is acting jointly with the state in the performance of a public function; or when the alleged conduct shares a close nexus with the state. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982) (joint participation); Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978) (public function); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961) (symbiotic relationship).
Therefore, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to show state action and his federal due process claim cannot stand. Accordingly, the Court
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), "in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a), however, if:
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Additionally, in deciding whether or not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims under § 1367(c), a court should also consider the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness to the litigants, and comity. See Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cnty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1569 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that these factors, as provided by the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), survive the enactment of § 1367).
In the present matter, having dismissed plaintiff's two federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's numerous remaining state law claims. "When the district court has dismissed all federal claims from a case, there is a strong argument for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims." Arnold v. Tuskegee Univ., 212 Fed.Appx. 803, 811 (11th Cir.2006). As the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly admonished, "[s]tate courts, not federal courts, should be the final arbiters of state law." Baggett v. First Nat. Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir.1997). Consequently, considerations of comity singularly favor a remand to the state court. Furthermore, including plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, only two of plaintiff's 14 causes of actions arise out of federal law. Thus, state law claims also "substantially predominate"
The Court concludes that judicial economy, fairness, convenience and comity demand that plaintiff's state law claims be decided by Georgia courts.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
Also before this Court are Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint [20]; Defendants' Request for Oral Arguments [47]; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [52]; Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [56]; and Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule [57].
Having dismissed plaintiff's federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims, the Court
Additionally, the Court
Having disposed of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the court
For the foregoing reasons, the Court
All federal claims are dismissed with prejudice and the state law claims are remanded to the Superior Court of Fulton County. The Clerk shall close this case.
For purposes of the discussion in text, the Court discerns no difference between a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir.2008) (citations omitted). Thus, pursuant to Rule 12(h)(2), a party may assert the defense of "[f]ailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" under 12(c) as well as 12(b)(6). See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(2). See also Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 n. 8 (11th Cir.2002) (concluding that lower court's conversion of a 12(b)(6) motion under 12(c) was harmless error because the substantive analysis under each rule is the same); Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1097 n. 46 (11th Cir.2001) (treating a 12(b)(6) motion filed after an answer as a motion filed under 12(c)).
Thus, a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where no issue of material fact remains unresolved and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114, 1117 (11th Cir. 1999).
