Opinion
C.A. No. 04C-02-121 CLS.
Submitted: May 14, 2004.
Decided: August 31, 2004.
On Defendant Scott A.M.E. Zion Church's Motion to Dismiss.
DENIED as to Count III direct liability, Count IV, Count V, and Count VI.John M. LaRosa, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware; Keith O. Dews, Foley Thompson Dews, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Robert C. Mcdonald, Esquire, Silverman Mcdonald Friedman, Wilmington, Delaware; Thomas L. McCally, Esquire, and Tina M. Maiolo, Esquire, Carr Maloney, P.C., Washington, DC; Attorneys for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arises from alleged harassment of Plaintiff Katina Collins ("Collins") by Rev. Dr. William L. Burton, Jr. ("Burton"). Collins alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation per se, and negligence. Defendants International Ministers and Lay Associations of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church ("International Ministers") and Scott African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church ("Scott Church") have filed a Motion to Dismiss.
A hearing on the Motion was held May 14, 2004. The court ruled on some counts of the Motion at the hearing and took under advisement rulings on other counts. At the hearing, the court DENIED Count I; GRANTED Count II; GRANTED Count III as to the vicarious liability charges; and GRANTED Count VII of the Motion to Dismiss. The court took under advisement Count III as to the direct liability charges; Count IV; Count V; and Count VI.
For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES the remaining Counts of Scott Church's Motion to Dismiss.
II. BACKGROUND
Collins alleges Defendant Burton made sexually harassing, intimidating phone calls to her between the period of November 2002 until September 2003. Burton was pastor and Collins was a member of Scott Church during the time in question. Collins states she initially went to the administration of Scott Church to stop the harassing phone calls, but no action was taken. Collins next attempted to contact Bishop Milton A. Williams, Sr. ("Williams") who presided over the Mid-Atlantic District of the denomination and who was also a representative for International Ministers. Williams refused to listen to tape recordings of Burton's comments to Collins and initially refused certified letters from Collins.
In September 2003, Collins made a complaint to Wilmington police who subsequently arrested Burton. Williams then convened a committee who found Burton guilty of sexual harassment in violation of International Ministers' and A.M.E. Zion Church's Book of Discipline. Burton continues to reside in the Scott parsonage and is compensated by A.M.E. Zion Church.
Collins states she has suffered a stroke, slurred speech, mental and emotional anguish, and defamation as the result of the actions and failure to act of the Defendants.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The parties have submitted materials in addition to the pleadings. The Motion to Dismiss, therefore, must be analyzed as a Motion for Summary Judgment. The court will grant summary judgment only if there are no genuine issues of material fact "and the moving party must show he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Summary judgment, therefore, is appropriate only if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the court finds no genuine issue of material fact.
"Once the court decides to accept matters outside the pleading, it must convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." Hilfirty v. Shipman, 91 F.3d 573, 578 (3d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted).
Deakyne v. Selective Insurance Co., 728 A.2d 569, 570 (Del.Super. 1997) (internal citation omitted).
Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979).
Guy v. Judicial Nominating Com'n., 659 A.2d 777, 780 (Del.Super. 1995); Figgs v. Bellevue Holding Co., 652 A.2d 1084, 1087 (Del.Super. 1994).
IV. DISCUSSION
The court has dismissed International Ministers as a Defendant from this suit. The rulings on the pending counts of the Motion to Dismiss will, therefore, be discussed solely with respect to Defendant Scott Church.
The court notes an amended complaint naming The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, a North Carolina Corporation as a defendant has been filed in this case.
Scott Church argues it has no direct liability to Collins. Scott Church argues it had no duty to Collins — only Burton had the duty to exercise due care.
Scott Church also argues Collins has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against it. Scott Church argues it did not have any authority to stop the conduct of Burton. Scott Church also argues its inaction does not amount to conduct that is so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery. Scott Church further argues that Collins did not suffer any physical or emotional damages as a result of any inaction on its part, even if it owed a duty to her. Scott Church argues any physical or emotional damages Collins suffered are the result of Burton's behavior — not anything Scott Church did or did not do.
Collins argues Scott Church did owe her a duty that was breached when she initially took her allegations regarding Burton to the administration of the church and it took no action against Burton.
A. Direct liability of Scott Church.
Additional facts are needed to determine whether Scott Church owed any duty to Collins. When Collins approached church administration with her allegations regarding Burton, the court concludes Scott Church may have acquired a duty to her. While Scott Church may not have had control over the placement of Burton at Scott Church, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that a church owes some duty to a parishioner who complains of harassment by someone in a position of authority within the church, because a church stands in a special relationship to a parishioner. Based on the forgoing, the court concludes there is an issue of material fact regarding whether Scott Church owed a duty to Collins, precluding summary judgment on this issue.
See e.g. 101 A.L.R.5th 1, Liability of Church or Religious Organization for Negligent Hiring, Retention, or Supervision of Priest, Minister, or Other Clergy Based on Sexual Misconduct.
The court, therefore, DENIES Scott Church's Motion to Dismiss as to Count III direct liability and Count IV.
B. Support of claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The fact that Scott Church did not exercise direct control over Burton misses the fact that Collins did approach church administration about the matter, but Scott Church failed to do anything at all. A reasonable jury could well conclude that this failure was sufficiently outrageous conduct by Scott Church to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus, construing the allegations in a light most favorable to Collins, there is a basis for Collins to recover. The court concludes summary judgment on this issue is inappropriate and DENIES Scott Church's Motion to dismiss as to Count V.
C. Count VI.
Count VI of the Motion to Dismiss merely states Collins has not alleged damages to support claims against Scott Church. As the court has found there may be a duty on the part of Scott Church towards Collins and Collins has alleged physical and emotional damages as a result, summary judgment on this issue is inappropriate. The fact that Scott Church disputes that Collins' damages are a result of Scott Church's behavior raises an issue of material fact as to causation, making summary judgment on this issue additionally inappropriate. The court, therefore, DENIES Scott Church's Motion to Dismiss as to Count VI.
The court notes there are two "Count VI" in the Motion to Dismiss. At argument, the court addressed the second "Count VI" as Count VII, and GRANTED the Motion to Dismiss as to Count VII.
V. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court finds genuine issues of material fact exist as to the remaining Counts of Defendant's Motion to dismiss. The court, therefore, DENIES Scott Church's Motion to Dismiss as to the direct liability charges of Count III, And Counts IV — VI.