You are here: / / Church’s Decision to Terminate Minister Constitutionally Protected...
,

Church’s Decision to Terminate Minister Constitutionally Protected Under “Ministerial Exception”

The First Department determined a minister who brought a wrongful termination action was, according to the terms of the personnel manual, an at will employee.  In addition the claim was barred by the ministerial exception under which a church’s decisions concerning the employment of a minister are constitutionally protected:

…[T]he ministerial exception also bars plaintiff’s claim, which primarily involves intra-church matters. “Under the ministerial exception’ …, a church’s decision to hire, to fire, and to prescribe the duties of its minister are commonly held to be constitutionally protected” … . Mills v Standing Gen Commn on Christian Unity & Interreligious Concerns, 2014 NY Slip Op 03437, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

You might also like
THE ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DURING PHOTO SHOOTS OF PLAINTIFF-MODEL WHEN SHE WAS 16 AND 17 YEARS OLD MET THE “SEXUAL CONDUCT” CRITERIA FOR THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA), THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW SECTION 50 (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE; HUSBAND AND WIFE HAD NOT AGREED ON THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE SALE (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGING LEGAL MALPRACTICE STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM IN TIME TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES, THEREBY PRECLUDING THE MALPRACTICE ACTION, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER THE POLICE ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE AND IN FAILING TO NOTIFY THE DISPATCHER OF THE CHASE, AND (2) WHETHER THE CHASE WAS A PROXIMATE OR CONCURRENT CAUSE OF PLAINTFFS’ ACCIDENT (THERE WAS NO CONTACT WITH EITHER VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE CHASE) (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER TENANT, THE LEASE PROVISION REQUIRING THE TENANT TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES REGARDLESS OF DEFAULT OR MERIT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Release Time Certificates, Allowing Full Pay for Police Officers Doing Union... Court Should Have Granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal In a...