———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
In an earlier blog post on this site, the two cases referenced above were introduced, noting how both had been, allegedly, mistreated by their respective employers and both employers sought protection from accountability behind what is commonly known as the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” which, where applicable, moots lawsuits in favor of the defendant employers.
I don’t know where the above-referenced cases might ultimately wind up or how they might be resolved, if ever. The O’Keefe case is still pending before the courts in Oklahoma and the Byers case was dismissed in 2021 without a determination on the merits.
It is my opinion that in both cases the employers (Oklahoma Christian University and Florida College) should be held liable for the harm done to both employees (tenured professors) in the process of their being fired and the consequences therefrom. In neither case do I believe the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” provides an appropriate escape by the employers.
In this article, I will try to briefly explain the “burdens” the employers have which I do not think they can bear in order to avoid the merits of the complaints filed against them by O’Keefe and Byers.
First, neither employer is a religious institution to which the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” might be applicable. Both are private schools designed as a matter of fact, law and theology to NOT be religious institutions. The Internal Revenue Service, while Richard Nixon was president, issued an administrative ruling (Revenue Ruling 70-549) in response to political pressure granting such specific institutions operated by members of certain churches treatment as “integral agencies of such churches” in order that employees could register as ministers and claim income tax free ministerial housing allowances. Such ruling at the time was and is contrary to the law and has never been judicially tested on its merits. Throughout their histories, such schools have boasted and promoted themselves as NOT religious institutions. OCU and FC should not be allowed to claim they are “religious” in order to evade accountability for their bad acts regarding O’Keefe and Byers.
Second, neither O’Keefe nor Byers were ministerial employees as that term is understood to be applicable to those affected by the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine”. O’Keefe was employed as a graphic design instructor. Byers was employed as a coach and physical education instructor. While both may be considered “ministers” under the theological concept of the “priesthood of believers”, neither can be shown to have been ministers as envisioned by the application of the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine”.
OCU and FC have to establish both of the above in order to reach the application of the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine”, but that alone is not enough to allow them to escape accountability for bad acts.
Third, if OCU and FC were able to clear the first two hurdles above, they would still have to demonstrate that the complaints filed in their cases are the sorts of complaints that are covered by the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine”; that the court’s consideration of the complaints would unconstitutionally require the meddling of the court into matters of religion which they are prohibited from doing. In both the O’Keefe and Byers cases, it may be successfully shown that one or more of the complaints against the employers do not come under the cover of such as the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” was designed to address.
It is my further opinion that the invocation of the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” by OCU and FC, as an afterthought (1 year in the case of O’Keefe and 5 years in the case of Byers), is an implied confession of wrongdoing by OCU and FC.
There is considerable history and ongoing litigation in the area of the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” and each case turns on its own peculiar facts and religious polity. I know of no precedents regarding such cases as O’Keefe and Byers. They both need to be heard at the highest levels based on the best facts and law that might be presented to the courts for consideration. Apart from moral and media persuasion, it may be too late for Byers. O’Keefe, however, may just be getting started.
Alternatively, OCU and FC would do well to initiate negotiations to quickly and reasonably reach settlements with O’Keefe and Byers.
.
