Arizona ruling allows lawsuits over hiring, licensing of church pastors

By The Associated Press

09.21.02

Printer-friendly page

PHOENIX — Arizona courts can decide lawsuits over the licensing and hiring of pastors who are known or suspected to be likely to victimize church members, a state appellate court ruled Sept. 19.

The 3-0 ruling by the Court of Appeals in a case from Maricopa County plows new legal ground in how courts apply the legal doctrine of separation between church and state.

The ruling in Rashedi v. General Board of Church of the Nazarene revives a woman's lawsuit against the Church of the Nazarene, a Christian denomination, by overturning a Superior Court judge's dismissal of the case.

Shirin Rashedi sued the church's General Board, its Arizona-Nevada district, the Crossroads Church of the Nazarene in Chandler, pastor Edward Yousfi and other church officials.

The suit alleged that Yousfi seduced Rashedi and defrauded her of at least $286,000. It also accused church officials of negligence in hiring and licensing him despite knowing or suspecting he had a history of stealing money and engaging in sexual relations with church members.

Church officials had asked that the suit be dismissed. They argued that civil courts had no jurisdiction over the case because of the First Amendment's call for separation of church and state.

A legal doctrine called "ecclesiastical abstention" generally precludes civil courts from inquiring into church matters, including employment disputes involving clergy.

However, there are exceptions.

A 1998 ruling by the state Court of Appeals held that religious organizations were subject to societal rules governing property rights, non-contract damage claims and criminal conduct.

In the new ruling, the Court of Appeals said civil courts can resolve claims involving the hiring or licensing of pastors despite knowledge or suspicions of likely misbehavior because the cases can be decided on legal principles that are neutral on religion.

"Resolution of these claims does not require the interpretation of religious doctrine or ecclesiastical law," Judge E.G. Noyes Jr. wrote for himself and Judges Jon W. Thompson and Sheldon H. Weisberg.

The church argued that a court still would have to examine the church's structure to properly define the duties of the various defendants.

"Maybe so," Noyes wrote. "But the court can examine the structure of a religious organization for such a purpose. A court may examine religious documents so long as it is done in purely secular terms."

The Court of Appeals sent the case back to Superior Court for further proceedings.

"Our clients are pleased they will have their day in court," said attorney Rick Bryson, a lawyer for Rashedi.

Lawsuits filed by several other parishioners are pending against the same defendants, he said.

Lawyers for the church either declined to comment or didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Related

Judge refuses to dismiss clergy sex-abuse case
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston had argued that church's activities are immune from judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.  05.10.02

Court: Constitution doesn't protect churches from sexual-abuse suits
'The First Amendment does not provide a shield behind which a church may avoid liability' for negligent hiring and supervision of clergy members, Florida high court says.  03.15.02

Utah high court sides with Mormon church in sexual-abuse case
Justices say family’s lawsuit would have invited ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’  03.12.01