Adventist Church Responds to La Sierra Employee Lawsuit
by AT News Team
On September 13, 2011, Defendants La Sierra University, North American Division of Seventh-Day Adventists (sic), and Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists filed responses to the lawsuit filed by Dr. Kaatz, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Bradley. In those responses, instead of defending the case on the merits, La Sierra University and the now united Church Defendants take positions that are completely at odds with the position La Sierra University has taken with Western Association of Schools and Colleges (“WASC”), its faculty and staff, its students, the community, its mission, and its bylaws. Of note, the position taken by the Church Defendants include the following:
- La Sierra University is not a separate institution, and is, instead, part of a single unified church entity.
- La Sierra University is not a true University, but rather a “church operated college (emphasis added)”
- That the spiritual leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church know what is best for this Seventh-day Adventist university, implying that Church leaders should be making academic and curriculum decisions.
- That this controversy is a theological one. This position is in direct conflict with the previous express statement of La Sierra University administration to the faculty, WASC, and the community, claiming that the forced resignations had nothing to do with the “origins controversy.”
Read the full press release from McCuneWright:
This "news" item seems that it would be more appropriate as a blog entry. Although in my college newswriting class I was told to anticipate biased/slanted reporting, it would be more helpful here to be as factual as possible rather than editorializing. There is ample opportunity for commentary in the comments section. My point is that even though I may totally agree with what was said by the AT News Team, I have a hard time reading this as "news."
Also, rather than base the news item solely on the press release of one side (plaintiff or defendant), it seems more prudent to refer readers to the source documents (e.g. complaints, demurrers, etc.). This brings me to my real question (maybe some of the lawyers on here will chime in): Is it typical for the two sides to respond by press releases in a case like this that is in litigation? I thought Gloria Allred was the exception, but may be I am wrong.
M
Michelle is right. This should be headlined, "Plaintiffs' Counsel Blasts LSU and Church Response to Lawsuit".
I'm going to make an educated guess, not knowing anything about the "response", and suggest that the "response" is a demurrer. A demurrer, by definition, does not respond to the merits of the lawsuit, but takes the plaintiffs' claims at face value. The demurrer argues that, based on the plaintiffs' allegations alone, even if true, one or more of the causes of action fails as a matter of law.
One of the theories pled by the plaintiffs, as I recall reading the complaint, was that the General
conference, the Pacific Union Conference and La Sierra were all tied together, both de jure and de facto in requesting the resignations. So in reality, what plaintiffs' counsel accuses the defendants of asserting – violating the sacrosanct wall of separation between church and education – is really only an adoption, for purposes of argument, of what plaintiffs' counsel claims in his complaint. The defendants, I suspect, are taking that allegation and saying, "Look, if that's true, then the plaintiffs' claim is self-defeating because the First Amendment gives considerable autonomy to religious institutions when it comes to matters of employment related to the church's religious mission."
In fact, while it makes nice press for the plaintiffs to take on the church, a lot of attorneys would raise their eyebrows at the seemingly unnecessary inclusion of the Church entities as defendants. It simply plays into the hands of the defense position that La Sierra is indeed a Church institution, and as such, enjoys the privileges and immunities extended to religious organizations under the Constitution. In other words, the plaintiffs' have made their job a lot tougher by first pointing out in their complaint the intertwining action between LSU and the Church. I would be interested in hearing from an experienced attorney what strategic advantage was gained by naming Church entities other than LSU as defendants in the lawsuit.
The propaganda from plaintiffs' counsel is certainly newsworthy. But the statement is the story – not the truth of the statement. Even if the defendants did not demur, but answered the complaint, the defense that LSU is Church owned and operated is one that any competent attorney would allege. Any attorney who failed to assert such a defense would be guilty of malpractice. An answer to a complaint is not a jury argument, where one has to be careful not to argue inconsistent theories. It is simply a piece of paper that frames the issues that might be raised as the litigation proceeds.
A responsive pleading to a complaint is NEVER as defense on the merits, nor is it intended to be such. To suggest otherwise is dishonest demagoguery, and indicates that the purveyor is more interested in using the lawsuit to create public pressure than to obtain whatever legal remedies the alleged wrongdoing may permit. No Michelle, it is not typical for two sides to try their lawsuit in the press. Gloria Allred is indeed the exception. When only one side does it, as seems to be the case here, it suggests desperation – not a particularly good sign if you are a plaintiff who simply seeks vindication of your legal rights.
A better link is:
http://www.mccunewright.com/lasierra.php
They have a link to a pdf of the filed NAD response.
Thank you for pointing out this link, Kevin. My hunch was spot on. The demurrers are finely crafted legal documents. The plaintiffs and those who support the lawsuit seem to be suffering from a bit of schizophrenia. On the one hand they indignantly wave the flag of legal rights and due process. On the other hand, when the defendants say, "Okay, we are willing to defend ourselves in the legal arena where you have chosen to wage battle," the political supporters of the plaintiffs protest that the Church and LSU are cowardly hiding behind legal technicalities. You can't choose the forum, and then object when your opponents elect to play by the rules of that forum.
Doesn't it raise some problems for not only LSU but all our universities if we claim that they are not 'real' universities but church operated colleges. Whether or not it is true, won't it look like we have been at least attempting to deceive a number of publics if we were granted university status from academic bodies while all the time we had no intention of being a university? Were we also attempting to deceive students and their parents into believing they were gaining an education at a university while all along it was really simply a 'church operated college'. It seems this move could conceivably undo a lot of work done over the years by our education departments.
Kevin, you need to read the pleadings and have a litigation lawyer explain it to you. Legal pleadings are not legal evidence of the matters stated therein. A demurrer, by its nature, accepts the factual assertions of the complaint. While I haven't studied the pleadings, I suspect if I did, I would find that plaintiffs' counsel alleged in his complaint that LSU was not a real university, but a Church-run college. The defendants' demurrers don't and can't argue over the truthfulness of those allegations, but simply contend that if plaintiffs' allegations are true, the actions which are the subject of the lawsuit cannot be decided by the civil courts.
Any reasonably objective onlooker must appreciate that the plaintiffs are waging a P.R. war. The complaint itself looks more like a manifesto than a form pleading. Had the plaintiffs avoided such polemical detail in their complaint, they would not have invited the demurrers. The plaintiffs want to position this case so that even if the Church and LSU win the lawsuit on the merits, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Whether the Church and LSU yield to political pressure or continue to focus on the legal issues remains to be seen.
I read a little about what a demurrer is. Basically it is arguing that even if the facts the plaintif says happened are true there still isn't a law against it. It isn't really surprising that they argue that separation of church and state basically lets them do what they want. This would be a strong argument for direct church employees. However these are not church employees, they are university employees. I don't think the court is likely to accept the argument because that would tend to open the door to things like the church of Wal-Mart. These demurrers are a relatively low cost and put in the record some arguments that they may want to use later even if they aren't the best arguments. This seems like the defense are being thorough and maybe hope to narrow the scope some if they are lucky. I don't expect these demurrers will affect accreditation, because I don't think they will have much affect on the out come of the case. I believe the out come of the case will affect accreditation, but it will be the points on which the case is decided and I don't think seperation of church and state will be one of them.
Kevin, civil courts have regularly recognized that education can be a part of the religious mission of a Church. They have also not had a particularly difficult time distinguishing between "good faith" religions and pre-fab "bongo-pipe" churches or "Wal-Mart" churches. A passing knowledge of the case law in this field would lead you to recognize that LSU and the Church are deadly serious in arguing for the application of the First Amendment to the actions surrounding these resignations. The slippery slope is not opening the door to Wal-Mart churches, but opening the door to civil courts imposing their moral preferences on church institutions to trump matters that are of good faith "mission" concern to the church.
As the Merikay Silver case should have demonstrated, pleading the First Amendment will not stand. The present G.C. President's father tried to use this to circumvent the church's obedience to civil laws and it did not succeed. This will also be true in the upcoming suit. One cannot plead First Amendment when disregarding formal contracts wherever they are in force. This is NOT a First Amendment case.
I would still worry that it establishes a precedent for the church to claim in other contexts that our universities are not really unversities. As there are members of the church – some in relatively high postitions – who believe they never should have been universities, it could be (re)opening a can of worms better left shut.
These Christian gentlemen, employees of a Christian entity, are apparerntly unaware (or have chosen to ignore) Paul's counsle about it being better suffer wrong than take other Christians to court. Ah, but maybe Paul's counsels are "living documents," and must be reinterpreted for our "enlightened" times. This lawsuit is about pride and sour grapes, nothing more.
If this were done, would we still have a university, and would students still want to attend?
Maybe those involved with this dispute and all that it entails (not just the lawsuit) should cast their eyes eastward and observe the fate of AUC. If La Sierra continues on its present course, it may well end up closing, but probably not voluntarily. If I'm not mistaken, the little lady whom so many here like to denigrate or ignore, predicted that we would lose some of our schools. It has started. Where will it end?
Comparing the fate of AUC to the probability of the same at LSU cannot be done. The reasons for AUC closing may have nothing to do with the current problems at LSU.
By the same token, Elaine, the principles upon which the Merikay Silver case turned may have nothing to do with this case. Perhaps I should be deferring here to your vast reserves of legal acumen (LOL), but somehow I don't think think gender discrimination will work real well for the plaintiffs in this case. There is abundant legal authority circumscribing the power of the courts to intervene in employment disputes involving those who carry out the educational ministry of a church. Your dogmatic assertion that "this is NOT a First Amendment case" demonstrates that, while you can resign from the Church, the fundamentalist SDA mindset is not so easily eradicated. You can take the girl out of Adventism, but you can't take Adventism out of the girl.
For those who insist on seeing this as a case about accreditation and evolution in the classroom, may I remind you that three of the four individuals who resigned had nothing to do with the biology department. Those who have read the transcripts of the conversations that led to the resignation requests know full well that the requests had nothing to do with biology curriculum. Assuming the plaintiffs can clear the First Amendment hurdle and get to the merits, this case will really turn on whether the resignations were coerced by false and misleading statements which rendered them in effect involuntary. Best case scenario for the plaintiffs – the resignations will be overturned and the matter will be remanded with orders for the Board to follow procedures. Since the Board has already ratified the actions of its chairman in requesting the resignations, I wouldn't be overly confident of prevailing on the merits if I were the plaintiffs.
The Merikay Silver was not mentioned because of gender, but because the SDA church had claimed "First Amendment" rights. In that case, the president, Neal Wilson, claimed that the church did not have to abide by the civil laws on employment because it was protected by the First Amendment. If you remember, their plea was lost, and Merikay won.
"Fundamentalist mindset" means nothing in court. The case will be judged on its merits, and the ignoring of academic freedom, academic tenure, due process, and that the church can not unlaterally dictate to the faculty who will or will not be hired or fired. In order to have university status there are specific requirements that must be followed in all its daily operation.
We will soon know how this case will continue.
I understand why you mentioned the Merikay Silver case. However, the fact that the Church invoked the First Amendment unsuccessfully in one case does not mean that it might not be properly applied in another case. There are many very significant differences between the two cases, not the least of which was that the Church had an overt policy of gender discrimination, which was not part of any body of belief or doctrine. In the instant case the plaintiffs do not belong to a constitutionally protected class, so the issues will play out quite differently.
You can ignore the differences if you want to, because you have a tenacious emotional attachment to the outcome. But if you were able to separate your feelings from matters which you really do not understand (legal principles and their application), you would be a bit more reticent about how this will play out. You obviously have not studied the applicable law so as to have even a superficial understanding of how this case differs from the Merikay Silver case.. Unfortunately, like most true believers, you will always claim to be on the side of Truth, even if you wrong.
Viva La Sierra! Viva!
T
From the press release:
" La Sierra University contends that its faculty and staff cannot depend on the protection of procedural and due process safeguards or California law." McCune notes that the logic of the denomination's position implies "that any action taken by the Board of Trustees and the administration is spiritual and religious in nature, and thus protected against government interference by the First Amendment." He adds that this theological move to skirt employment and privacy law is reflected in the move to have only one law firm (and a non-Adventist attorney) defend both church administrators and the academic institution of La Sierra University."
This use of the First Amendment was the same applied, unsuccessfully in the Merikay case. There are many more cases other than gender discrimination for which this may be pleaded. The courts will decide, not by emotions, which I well understand. To reject all other positions as "emotional involvement" neglects the real legalities in such pleadings.
McCune's argument is just that – argument. He wishes that LSU had taken the position he accuses it of taking. The notion that LSU is nefariously using the Constitution to skirt employment and privacy law is roughly akin to arguing that churches engage in tax evasion when they claim non-profit exemptions from tax laws. The Consitution is part of the law. To claim its protections is hardly an ignominious skirting of the law. The fundamental legal issue that will remain, regardless of the outcome of the demurrer, is whether the individuals who resigned were expected to advance the religious mission of LSU. I can't wait to see plaintiffs' counsel argue that neither faculty nor top level administrators at a religious university are among those with roles of advancing the religious mission of LSU. This is, after all, precisely what he will have to argue. How do you think that will fly with mainstream Adventists?
Let's look for a minute at the law in which you seem to be so well versed, Elaine. Federal courts have held that a Salvation Army officer who manages a thrift shop is a minister withing the meaning of the law because he is expected to use his sales position as an opportunity to witness hope and faith to patrons of the thrift store. of course that has no applicability here, does it, Elaine? The last thing in the world anyone would expect a non-relgion faculty member or administrator at an SDA university to do is witness faith and hope. We need to keep matters of faith quarantined in the religion classrooms.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a communications director of a church, though not manifestly a ministerial employee, fills an essentially ministerial function because he is responsible for the integrity of the church's commmunications, which are part of its mission. The Supreme Court has held that the separation of function from faith creates an impermissible risk that a secular court will inform a religious institution that its minister is not really a minister. This "church autonomy" doctrine is rooted not only in the First Amendment, but in the Magna Carta, which guaranteed freedom for the English Church, with undiminished rights and liberties.
The federal courts have held that a university is a religious organization for purposes of federal labor laws where it "holds itself out to students, faculty and community as a Catholic School." Knowledge of the employee, the openly religious nature of the employer, and the organization's non-profit status, in the words of Justice Stephen Breyer (darling of progressive SDAs), all but exhaust an appropriate inquiry into the sincerity of a religious organization's self-understanding of its ministerial offices. "Federal court entanglement in matters as fundamental as a religious institution's selection or dismissal of it spiritual leaders risks an unconstitutional trespass on the most spiritually intimate grounds of a religious community's existence."
This is but a smattering of relevant legal precedents. So tell me again, Barrister Nelson – sometimes I'm a bit dense – just what are the legal realities I am overlooking that make First Amendment issues irrelevant to this case?
There are two conflicting issues: One, the rights under the First Amendment under which a religious institution operates.
The second issue: The administration and faculty of a university also have allegiance to the departments and school for which they were hired. The biology faculty were hired by the university, not PUC or NAD, to teach biology, not SDA theology (there is a separate department for that). Had they failed in teaching biology, they could have rightly been dismised; however, in the teaching of their subjects, were they ever told they were not teaching proper biology? Did their contract call for them to teach SDA creationism, or biology?
This is the exact same problem, it appears, between the autonomy of the university and the proper role of the church. Should the NAD and PUC president have the ultimare decision on faculty and their duties? Should the president of LSU be set aside and defer to the PUC for hiring, firing and running the university?
Please explain how these separate entities should be administered.
Is LSU a religious organization? Of course! As defined by the legal authorities I have referenced, did the individuals who resigned have a "ministerial" role? If not, why would LSU require that they even need to be Christian, let alone SDA? If the answer to those two questions is in the affirmative, your question, Elaine, about how legally separate, but missionally intertwined, church entities should be administered vis a vis one another, may be relevant to WASC, but it won't impact the lawsuit.
There is one itsy bitsy issue that you seem to assiduously overlook: These folks resigned! They were not fired. Neither you nor I know what measures, between waterboarding and threats of eternal damnation were employed to induce the resignations. Assuming, as I do, that the measures were not such as would shock the conscience or induce innocent folks to bow before the Inquisition, it wouldn't really matter if the Chairman of the Board, the department chair, the president of LSU, or their wives requested the resignations. A resignation, when tendered, is generally effective to terminate one's employment, and constitutes a waiver of the due process rights that otherwise might be available (cf, Anthony Wiener's resignation from Congress).
Elaine, I eagerly await your analysis of the applicable legal authorities.
I am old enough to remember the days when the internet was relatively new. It didn't take long for Adventist individuals and groups to establish a presence on sites such as AOL, Compuserve, etc. Because I believe what we have always claimed that the purpose of true education is to train people to think, not to be reflectors of other people's thoughts, I eagerly joined a number of these sites, anxious to hear mature people discuss important issues. Instead, all of the discussions of any import turned into rants where people hurled insults and denigrated each other rather than graciously presenting their views and taking the time to actually listen to those who might differ with them. Intelligent informed discourse quickly became polluted by the back and forth of people more interested in sarcastically putting down and demeaning each other than a thoughtfull examination of issues of importance to our church.
Today I finally decided that I might explore both the Spectrum and Adventist Today websites to see if anything had changed. There are some very important issues facing our church and I was hoping to find a place where the facts as various people saw them were fairly presented and the ideas examined on their merits. Instead, sadly, I find that the same spirit prevails as before with people trading snide insults and veiled, and sometimes unveiled, sarcasm – trying their best to prove that they know more than the other person. To paraphrase the dictum taught in most law schools, "If you cannot present your case on the merits, then yell loud. And if yelling loud won't work, then tear down the character and person of your opponent."
I came hoping for civil discourse that reflected the reality and spirit of 1 Corinthians 13 and instead found . . . well, I was reminded why I left 20 years ago.
I am disappointed and will probably not be back.
Sincerely,
Dan M. Appel
That's too bad, Dan. My wife kind of feels the same way. She doesn't enjoy the world of disputation. It is my experience that it is difficult to find a forum where a broad spectrum of opinions is exchanged without some sarcasm and snide remarks. I admit that I am sometimes guilty of it myself when I think an argument is vacuous or dishonest.
I think, like Elaine, that there is great value in being confronted with those whose opinions differ sharply from your own. Most people simply choose to feed themselves with a diet of what they agree with. I don't think your complaint is unique to Adventism. You will find it on any website which is open to a broad spectrum of opinions.
Don't blame the forum, Dan. Blame human nature. And if you don't take it personally or too seriously, it really can be stimulating and enjoyable. If it's not your cup of tea, well that's okay. But please spare us a "holier than thou" attitude!
Dan, it is true that people still use ad hominem attacks when there is a paucity of valid arguments. However, as a frequent poster on both sites I have found that there are many valuable comments made by very reputable folks who are very familiar with the inner workings of Adventism. Certainly, not all are personal attacks as has been your impression. Both AToday and Spectrum have been valuable sources of SDA news, not all of which are in the official news releases.
Yes, I am familiar with the old Compuserve program and most since then. Those who have "personal rants" can scrolled down an left unread.