Connecticut Cases April 10, 2019: Parish of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church v. Kovoor

Case Description

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Tierney, Kevin, J.T.R.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS DATED OCTOBER 31, 2018 (#133.00)

Hon. Kevin Tierney Judge Trial Referee

The two named defendants, the Reverend Canon George I. Kovoor, and the Right Reverend Ian T. Douglas, filed this Amended Motion seeking to dismiss the claims of the individual plaintiffs herein for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (#133.00). The first basis for the claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction states: "The relief that Plaintiffs seek in their emergency application would entangle this Court in matters of internal doctrine and governance of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut." The second basis for the claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction states:" ... the individual Plaintiffs are no longer members of the Vestry of Saint Paul’s and no longer have standing to prosecute their claims on behalf of Saint Paul’s." The plaintiffs bear the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction whenever and however raised. Fink v. Golenbock, 238 Conn. 183, 199, fn. 13 (1996).

The initial complaint is dated July 5, 2018 and is labeled a Declaratory Judgment. In that complaint the plaintiffs, Parish of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church and the Vestry of the Parish of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, both situated in Darien, Connecticut, filed a two-count complaint against the then only defendant, Reverend Canon George I. Kovoor, who was alleged to be the then Rector of the Parish of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. The First Count alleges misrepresentations and failure to disclose certain employment facts by the Reverend Canon George I. Kovoor in his application for employment as Rector made to the Vestry of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. The First Count seeks a declaratory judgment granting the equitable remedy of rescission of the employment contract, injunctive relief preventing Reverend Kovoor from occupying the premises and monetary damages. The Second Count seeks monetary damages for a breach of his fiduciary duty. The defendant, Right Reverend Ian T. Douglas, the Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut was permitted to intervene as a party defendant on September 4, 2018 (#105.01). The Bishop presides over the 165 parishes, mission and Worshipping Communities of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut including that of the Parish of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Verified Complaint on August 22, 2018 (#109.00). A Revised Amended Verified Complaint was filed on October 9, 2018 (#118.00). In that October 9, 2018 complaint more extensive claims for relief were filed including compensatory and punitive damages against the defendant, Bishop Douglas, for claimed gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty.

The uncontroverted evidence at trial demonstrated that the polity of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America (PECUSA) is hierarchial. PECUSA was established in 1789 by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It presently consists of ninety-five geographical dioceses that are presided over by a bishop, who is the ecclesiastical authority. Each diocese is made up of a confederation of congregations, known as parishes, located in its geographical area. Parishes that are affiliated with PECUSA hold their membership in a diocese of the church, and not in the general church.

PECUSA is governed by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church and by the Episcopal Church’s own constitution and canons. The Episcopal Church’s legislative body is the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, consisting of the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, either of which may originate and propose legislation. The General Convention has enacted a constitution and a set of church laws, known as canons, by which all affiliated dioceses and local churches are bound. Additionally, each diocese has its own supplementary constitution and set of canons by which each diocese and its local parishes are bound. The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut is a constituent party of PECUSA, and accedes to, recognizes and adopts the General Constitution of PECUSA and acknowledges the authority of the Episcopal Church thereunder.

The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity St. Michael’s Parish, Inc. et al. v. The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut et al., 224 Conn. 797, 807-08 (1993).

PECUSA is and always has had a hierarchical polity within which the constitution and canons of PECUSA and the Diocese govern the life of the local parishes. The courts of this state and many other jurisdictions have uniformly acknowledged these defining principles of the Episcopal polity. See, e.g. Christ Church v. Trustees, 67 Conn. 554, 568, 35 A. 552 (1896); Bishop & Diocese of Colorado v. Mote, supra at 104-05; Duncan v. Watterson, Docket No. 77-3926 CA(L)01k, slip op. p. 9 (Fla.Cir.Ct, Feb. 21, 1979); Protestant Episcopal Church v. Graves, 83 N.J. 572, 578, 417 A.2d 19 (1980), cert. denied sub nom. Moore v. Protestant Episcopal Church, 449 U.S. 1131, 101 S.Ct. 954, 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981); Church of the Ascension v. Diocese of Newark, Docket No. C-1637288E, slip op. p. 10 (N.J.Sup.Ct.Ch.Div, Feb. 1, 1989); Tea v. Protestant Episcopal Church, 96 Nev. 399, 402, 610 P.2d 182 (1980).

The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity St. Michael’s Parish, Inc. et al. v. The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut et al., 224 Conn. 797, 827 (1993).

On October 29, 2018 an Emergency Application for Temporary Injunction was filed by the plaintiffs against both defendants (#129.00). Six numbered Claims for Relief were contained within the Application for Emergency Temporary Injunction including: (1) quitting the premises, (2) return of all mail, (3) surrendering all keys to the premises together with a list of names and addresses of all persons who had possession and use of the keys at any time, (4) repair and restore any part of the premises to its former condition, (5) prepare and deliver to the Senior Warden a complete list of all files, records and equipment, including computers, that were used during the defendants’ control of the premises, and (6) reimbursement to the plaintiffs for all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred as a result of the defendants’ "actions in entering on the premises of the plaintiff St. Paul’s Parish."

On the same day, both defendants filed their first Motion to Dismiss (#127.00). Two days later this October 31, 2018 Amended Motion to Dismiss was filed (#133.00). The Application for Emergency Temporary Injunction was first assigned to the special proceedings short calendar docket of the Superior Court at Stamford for a status conference on November 19, 2018 over which this court presided. The matter was thereafter assigned for an evidentiary hearing on both the Emergency Application for Temporary Injunction (#129.00) and this Amended Motion to Dismiss (#133.00). This court conducted an evidentiary hearing on December 18, December 19, January 3, January 4, and concluded the evidentiary hearing on January 15, 2019. Since the Amended Motion to Dismiss raised subject matter jurisdiction that issue was submitted to this court by the parties on January 15, 2019. No post-hearing briefs were filed since the parties relied on the Memoranda already submitted in the court file.

This litigation is controlled by recent court decisions based upon the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances." "With respect to the governing legal principles, two United States Supreme Court decisions have long guided civil courts in resolving church property disputes so as to avoid becoming entangled in first amendment issues ... Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 722-23, 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871) ... Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979)." The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut et al. v. Gauss, 302 Conn. 408, 422, 424 (2011). A number of Connecticut Supreme court cases are of interest in discussing the progression of the religious provisions of the First Amendment in regards to current church disputes. New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church et al. v. Fisher et al., 182 Conn. 272 (1980); The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity St. Michael’s Parish, Inc. et al. v. The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut et al., 224 Conn. 797 (1993) and Errgong-Weider v. United Congregational Church of Norwalk, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket Number FST CV 11-6009458 S (October 25, 2011, Tobin, J.) [52 Conn.L.Rptr. 778].

Prior Connecticut law noted a distinction between hierarchical churches and congregational churches in answering whether and to what extent the courts have jurisdiction over internal church disputes. "A hierarchical church has been defined as one in which individual churches are organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine, and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church." Errgong-Weider, Id. fn.2. "In contrast, a congregational church is defined as one strictly independent of other ecclesiastical associations, and one that so far as church government is concerned, owes no fealty or obligation to any higher authority." Errong-Weider, Id. fn.2; New v. Kroeger, 167 Cal.App.4th 800, 815-16, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 (2008). For example, the church in Gauss was the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut and the church was held to be hierarchical. The church in Errgong was held by the trial court to be a congregational church. "The United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the jurisdiction of courts over intrachurch disputes in several cases, producing a body of case law that, at times, has produced confusion for the lower courts." Errgong-Weider v. United Congregational Church of Norwalk, Id. This court will disregard the fact that the Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Connecticut is a hierarchical church and will abide by the neutral principles of law approach. "We conclude that the neutral principles of law approach is preferable because it provides the parties with a more level playing field, and the outcome in any given case is not preordained in favor of the general church, as happens in practice under the hierarchical approach." The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut et al. v. Gauss, supra , 302 Conn. 429. "The court finds that the resolution of these issues will not require the court to intrude upon the defendant’s exclusive right to decide matters pertaining to doctrine or its internal governance or organization." Errgong-Weider v. United Congregational Church of Norwalk, Id.

Actions based upon contract law centering on employment disputes between clergy and religious institutions can be litigated in civil court only if neutral principles of law can be applied without entanglement with religious considerations. A church may make enforceable promises. See e.g., Watson v. Jones, supra, 80 U.S. at 714, 13 Wall. 679. Courts, however, may not inquire into matters whose enforcement would require a searching and therefore impermissible inquiry into church doctrine. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, supra, 426 U.S. at 723, 96 S.Ct. 2372.

Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut et al., 120 Conn.App. 666, 677 (2010).

"The First Amendment prohibits governmental action, including court action, that would burden the free exercise of religion by encroaching on a church’s ability to manage its internal affairs." Campbell v. Shiloh Baptist Church et al., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket Number HHD CV 16-6067714 S (December 1, 2016, Noble, J.) [63 Conn.L.Rptr. 526]. Campbell held that the neutral principles of law analysis is proper for church disputes, not just limited to church property disputes.

The plaintiffs claim that the neutral principals of law that can be applied herein are those relating to the rescission of an ordinary employment contract. In this regard the employment contract is that of Reverend George I. Kovoor, a six-page employment contract dated March 2016. Ex. 4. The contract was prepared on the letterhead of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut and was executed by Bishop Douglas and Canon Tolzmann on behalf of the Diocese of Connecticut. The contract states that: "The Rev. Canon George Type Kovoor has been elected rector." An ordained priest in the Episcopal Church is given the title of Canon and is properly referred to by the appellation Rev., which stands for Reverend. The position of Rector is the priest in charge of an Episcopalian Parish. Presbyter is also another accepted name for an Episcopal priest. "The first paragraph of the contract provides that it is to continue until such time as it is dissolved, with the authorization of the bishop, either by mutual consent or by arbitration and decision as provided by the relevant canons of the Diocese of Connecticut and of the General Convention." Ex. 4, first page.

The neutral principals of law that the plaintiffs seek to apply those relate to common-law employment contract disputes. Under Connecticut common law both parties, employer and employee, are entitled to enforce the contract. "As a matter of common law, a party to a contract ... may rescind that contract and avoid liability thereunder if that party’s consent to the contract was procured either by the other party’s fraudulent misrepresentations, or by the other party’s nonfraudulent material misrepresentations." Isola v. MacKenzie, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia/Milford, Docket Number CV 92-0307875 S (May 30, 1997, Leheny, J.); Munroe v. Great American Insurance Company, 234 Conn. 182, 188 (1995). The Connecticut Supreme Court has regularly held that "it is a condition of rescission and restitution that the party seeking rescission offer, as nearly as possible, to place the other party in the same situation that existed prior to the execution of the contract." Burt’s Spirit Shop, Inc. v. Ridgway, 215 Conn. 355, 360 (1990). In addition the court must consider in employment contract disputes whether a contract is "void" because they are not properly formed, and thus have no legal effect, or are legally valid contracts that are "voidable" because they are subject to substantive defects that are not related to contract formation. Nussbaum v. Kimberly Timbers, Ltd., 271 Conn. 65, 71 (2004). Further the plaintiffs claim that other neutral principals of law such as failure to inform are applicable. Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375, 435, 446 (2013).

Errgong-Weider involved a number of issues including the validity of a motion that was presented to the church congregation to terminate the plaintiff’s contract as pastor of the United Congregational Church of Norwalk, thereafter to authorize the church council to hire an interim pastor, and to search for a part-time pastor. As stated the trial court, Tobin, J., found that neutral principles of law could be applied to resolve those disputes, the court found that those neutral principles of law were the ordinary precepts that control voluntary associations. As a result the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint was denied on the basis that the Superior Court retained subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and resolve the disputes.

In the same year our Supreme Court adopted "the ministerial exception under the first amendment of the United States Constitution, to Connecticut’s subject matter jurisdiction over certain employment-related claims brought by and against religious institutions." Dayner v. Archdiocese of Hartford, 301 Conn. 759, 761 (2011).

The Supreme Court in Dayner applied the ministerial exception and entered the following rule: "We further conclude that, in considering whether the ministerial exception is applicable in a particular case, a Connecticut state court must follow the standard articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198, 208-09 (2d Cir. 2008), and consider whether: (1) the employment relationship is religious in nature; and (2) if so, whether adjudicating the particular claims and defenses in the case would require the court to intrude into a religious institution’s exclusive right to decide matters pertaining to doctrine or its internal governance or organization." Id., 761-62.

The plaintiff, Dayner, was employed as principal of Saint Hedwig’s School in the Archdiocese of Hartford of the Roman Catholic Church. Her employment was not renewed and she filed this instant lawsuit. The Dayner court applied those two prongs of the ministerial exception: The court found that the second prong had been satisfied and entered an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "Indeed, the very act of litigating a dispute that is subject to the ministerial exception would result in the entanglement of the civil justice system with matters of religious policy, making the discovery and trial process itself a first amendment violation." Dayner v. Archdiocese of Hartford, supra , 301 Conn. 771.

The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The plaintiffs claim that these neutral principals of law being applied under the circumstances now before this court render the March 2016 employment agreement void and of no force and effect. Ex. 4. The plaintiffs claim that the March 2016 contract is void ab initio because of misrepresentations that go to the essence of the contract. "The Defendant Kovoor induced the contract by massive, intentional or nonintentional, material misrepresentation ..." Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of their Application for a Temporary Injunction dated October 15, 2018 (#123.00, page 1). Among the claims of misrepresentation: Reverend George I. Kovoor executed the March 2016 contract with a date of ordination to the diaconate on December 5, 1982 without proof that he was thereafter ordained to his priestly duties; The March 2016 contract had typed to the right of his signature the phrase, "December 5, 1982 Date of Ordination to the Diaconate"; The contract was contingent upon receipt of a green card and Reverend Kovoor’s status was that he was not eligible for a green card based upon his visa application; Reverend Kovoor falsely claim to have held the position of Rector of St. John’s Parish in New Haven; he claimed to have been ordained on December 5, 1982 and yet his ministry portfolio claimed that he had been a priest for twenty-three years as of the year 2015; he failed to provide the Bishop’s office with a letter dimissory from his last diocese; he falsely represented that he was chaplain to the Queen of England; he claimed that he was a fellow at Berkley College of Yale University yet he never taught at Yale University; he falsely claimed four weeks of time off to perform his royal duties as chaplain to the Queen; he falsely claimed that he was the Principal of Trinity College University of Bristol when in fact Trinity College was not a college within the University of Bristol system; he claimed that he was Principal and President of Crowther Hall, which was connected with the University of Birmingham, and in fact Crowther Hall was not part of or a school within the University of Birmingham; and he was neither Principal of any institution as previously claimed; In addition other allegations of misrepresentations were in Reverend George I. Kovoor’s application to become Rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Darien, Connecticut. The plaintiffs claim that rescission of the March 2016 contract of employment is a reasonable result and recission of the contract applies neutral principals of law.

The defendants counter and claim that such an inquiry by the Superior Court is prohibited based on Connecticut’s interpretation of the first amendment.

In this case, the plaintiff’s claim centers around a dispute involving the defendant’s selection of candidates whom it will assist in obtaining ecclesiastical employment. The plaintiff contends that he satisfied the requirements set forth by the defendant and therefore was qualified to have the defendant assist him in obtaining ecclesiastical employment. He contends, however, that the defendant "blacklisted" him based on, inter alia , his theological perceptions. Resolution of this claim would involve an impermissible inquiry into the defendant’s internal procedures and its judgment regarding the qualifications of clergy, as well as the plaintiff’s objective qualifications for employment opportunities through the defendant. The reasonableness of alleged promises and reliance thereon cannot be decided without inquiry into such matters. The first amendment precludes governmental interference with the selection of clergy. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, supra, 344 U.S. at 116, 73 S.Ct. 143; see also Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, supra, 280 U.S. at 16, 50 S.Ct. 5 ("[decisions of church authorities concerning] what the essential qualifications of [clergy] are and whether the candidate possesses them ... although affecting civil rights, are accepted in litigation before the secular courts as conclusive ..."). Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut et al., 120 Conn.App. 666, 677-78 (2010).

Two witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing on Motion to Dismiss, both of whom were representatives of the hierarchical staff of the Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Connecticut. Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut were marked as evidence before this court. Ex. 1. Portions of the Constitution & Canons of The Episcopal Church in the United States were also offered in evidence before this court. Ex. 2. During the process of attempting to resolve the dispute between the Vestry of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church and Reverend George I. Kovoor, the Right Reverend Ian T. Douglas, Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Church of Connecticut, caused a reconciliation process to commence involving interviews, reports and mediation with the assistance of consultants appointed for each side of the dispute. Canon III.9.15(c), Ex. 2, page 99. Details of that process to dissolve the pastoral relationship were presented to this court including Canon III.9.15(c) in Ex. 2, page 99. Pursuant to that process over three months of reconciliation efforts were performed by Bishop Douglas and those that assisted him during the reconciliation, consultation and mediation. Canon III of the Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut controls all subordinate religious associations in Connecticut associated with the Episcopal Church including Parishes and Worshipping Communities. Ex. 1, page 1. Canon III is entitled; "Clerical Settlement and Removal." Ex. 1, page 6.

In addition St. Paul’s Episcopal Church was subject to the Constitution & Canons of The Episcopal Church that was adopted and revised by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 2015. Title III thereof is entitled; "Ministry" and it contains sixteen Canons. Ex. 2, page vi. Canon 9 of the Title III is entitled: "Of the Life and Work of Priests." Section 15 of Canon 9, Title III thereof is entitled: "Dissolution of the Pastoral Relation." It is found in Exhibit 2 on pages 99 and 100. Exhibit 2, Sec. 15(c) at page 99 discusses the "mediation and reconciliation processes" mentioned already by this court. Those processes were engaged fully by the parties.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences. The Bishop then invoked Sec. 15(d)(1). Ex. 2, page 99. He furnished notice that he was going to be issuing a "godly judgment" within the time set forth in the appropriate Canons. Bishop Douglas signed and issued a three-page June 14, 2018 "godly judgment" on Diocese letterhead. Ex. 5. "Canon III.9.15 requires me as the Ecclesiastical Authority to render a godly judgment regarding the Vestry’s request to dissolve the pastoral relation with the Rector, the Rev. Canon George Kovoor. It is my decision that the pastoral relation continue and that the Rev. Canon George Kovoor remain the duly elected, canonically recognized, and episcopally installed Rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Darien, Connecticut." Ex. 5, page 1. In addition the "godly judgment" directed that two steps should be taken by the plaintiffs as the Vestry of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church and three steps be taken by the Rector, the Rev. Canon George Kovoor. Ex. 5, second page. Bishop Douglas testified that the Rector abided by, performed completely and satisfactorily complied with the three steps required. He testified that the plaintiffs as the Vestry of St. Paul’s Church failed to perform any of the two steps set forth in the June 14, 2018 "godly judgment." Ex. 5, second page.

In accordance with the procedures of the Episcopal Church Diocese of Connecticut, an annual Convention is held and the most recent was held in October 2018. The lack of compliance with the steps to be performed by the Vestry of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church were noted and brought to the attention of the Episcopal Church of Connecticut Convention in October 2018. The Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church in effect as of this time, Canon III, 9.15(e) state; "In the event of the failure or refusal of either party to comply with the terms of the judgment, the Bishop may impose such penalties as may be set forth in the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese; and in default of any provisions for such penalties therein, the Bishop may act as follows: ... (2) In the case of a Vestry, invoke any available sanctions including recommending to the Convention the Diocese that the Parish be placed under the supervision of the Bishop as a Mission until it has complied with the judgment." Ex. 2, page 100. It was in accordance with that above section that the following resolution was passed at the Convention of the Episcopal Church Diocese of Connecticut on October 26, 2018: "RESOLVED, that pursuant to Title III, Canon III.9.15(e)(2) of The Episcopal Church, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, located in Darien, be placed under the supervision of the Bishop as a Mission, which is understood in the Episcopal Church in Connecticut as a Worshipping Community (ECCT Canon V, Section 1)." Ex. 6, page 1. That Resolution published on Diocesan letterhead was formally furnished to St. Paul’s Episcopal Church by an October 27, 2018 two-page letter signed by Bishop Douglas. Ex. 7. This October 27, 2018 letter was published on Diocesan letterhead. Bishop Douglas testified before this court that neither of the two steps set forth in his June 14, 2018 "godly judgment" have since been complied with by either the former Wardens, former Vestry or former parishioners of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church Darien, Connecticut. The Bishop testified that from and after October 26, 2018 St. Paul’s Episcopal Church is no longer a parish of the Diocese of the Episcopal Church of the State of Connecticut. It is a Worshipping Community. As such, there is no longer any Vestry and no position as Senior Warden or Junior Warden. Worshipping Communities do not have a Vestry, Senior Warden or Junior Warden and are under the direct supervision of the Bishop. Ex. 1. Canon V, Section 3, Ex. 1, page 9.

It is that fact that is before this court as the first stated reason for the Motion to Dismiss, that the named plaintiffs as Junior Warden and Senior Warden of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, the individuals as members of the Vestry of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church and St. Paul’s Episcopal Church as a Parish of the Episcopal Church of Connecticut are no longer in existence since the Parish has been converted to a Worshipping Community in accordance with the Canons of both the Episcopal Church of Connecticut and the Episcopal Church National Association. The defendants have moved to dismiss this lawsuit since the plaintiffs have no standing to commence or to maintain this litigation.

Bishop Douglas testified before this court for three full days. There was extensive cross examination relating to virtually each and every single one of the Canons of the Episcopal Church both Connecticut and Nationally. The cross examination questioned the polity, organization, and authority of the Episcopal Church and what Bishop Douglas did to verify that Canon Kovoor was indeed an Episcopal priest. The cross examination of Bishop Douglas also raised questions of his interpretation of the Canons of the Episcopal Church including whether or not a Parish becomes a Mission, not a Worshipping Community, upon the Parish’s dissolution. The Bishop was asked about his own ordination as a Deacon, then as a Priest and then as a Bishop.

Much of the supporting documents that had been submitted to the Vestry in their seeking the employment of Rev. Canon George I. Kovoor as Rector of St. Paul’s Church were before this court; His December 5, 1982 ordination certificate and license, Ex. 9; His April 25, 2003 letter of appointment as Chaplain to the Queen of England, Ex. 10; A June 18, 2015 letter written by Bishop Douglas, Ex. 11; A March 18, 2013 four-page letter of recommendation by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Ex. 12; A reference letter used by Rev. Canon Kovoor in March 19, 2013 for his application to Yale University, Ex. 13; Six separate letters of recommendation written by various individuals including Bishops of the Episcopal Church throughout the world, Ex. 14 through and including Ex. 19; (Ex. 17 was marked for ID); George Kovoor’s ten-page CV, Ex. 25; and George Kovoor’s eight-page Ministry Portfolio, Ex. 26. Substantial questions were asked of the Bishop concerning each of these documents and the comparison of those documents with Ex. 25, the curriculum vitae of Reverend George Kovoor, and his Ministry Portfolio regarding of his religious employment history. Ex. 26.

In this litigation, there were two separate church governing documents that were presented to this court. The first was the Constitution & Canons, The Episcopal Church utilized "For the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America Otherwise Known as The Episcopal Church" effective 2015. Ex. 2. The current portions thereof that were offered in evidence before this court come from a document that is in excess of 165 pages and the court exhibit included pages 99 and 100, being Canon III.9.15 relating to the "Dissolution of the Pastoral Relation." The second set of governing documents were the "Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut." Ex. 1, pages 1-24. This Motion to Dismiss hearing disclosed three separate procedures set forth by those Canons. They were testified to in detail by the Diocesan witnesses. The first procedure was the "mediation and reconciliation processes" between the Rector and Vestry with the assistance of the Bishop and others appointed by the Bishop to represent both sides of the dispute. That is referenced in the Constitution & Canons, Title III, Canon 9, Sec. 15(c), Ex. 2, page 99. The second procedure was the issuance of the June 14, 2018 "godly judgment" by Bishop Douglas in accordance with that same Canon, Sec. 15d(4). Ex. 2, page 100, Ex. 5. The third procedure was the decision of the Convention of the Diocese on October 26, 2018 terminating the status of St. Paul’s as being a Parish of the Episcopal Church Diocese of Connecticut and converting it to a Worshipping Community under the supervision of the Bishop as a Mission for noncompliance with the Bishop’s "godly judgment." The Episcopal Church Convention issued that RESOLUTION in accordance with that same Canon, Sec. 15(e)(2). Ex. 6, Ex. 7.

The court finds that the plaintiffs in this case, whether a formal Parish of the Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Connecticut, a Worshipping Community of the Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Connecticut, the current Vestrymen and Wardens of the parish, former Vestrymen or Wardens of the Parish, parishioners of a Parish, or parishioners of a Worshipping Community, none of those plaintiffs have abided by any of those three procedures set forth in the governing documents for the Episcopal Church. The holding of The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 721-23, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976) stands for the proportion that civil courts are required to accept the ecclesiastical determinations that have been reached by the final church judicatory in which authority to make that decision resided. "We will not delve into the various church constitutional provisions relevant to this conclusion, for that would repeat the error of the Illinois Supreme Court." Id., 722; Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, supra , 120 Conn.App. 671.

Neutral principals of law can be applied to church disputes. Herein the plaintiffs claim common-law employment contract law is such a neutral principle of law that should be applied. Applying those provisions would relitigate the three decisions already issued by the Episcopal Church as to the St. Paul’s/Kovoor Rector situation. In this court’s opinion that would cause the Superior Court to examine the internal workings and polity of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut. "Religious freedom encompasses the power of religious bodies to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine." The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, supra , Id., 722. The Supreme Court has prohibited the civil courts from engaging in a "searching and therefore impermissible inquiry into church polity." Id., 723; The Maryland and Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. The Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc., 396 U.S. 367, 368-70, 90 S.Ct. 499, 500-01, 24 L.Ed.2d 582 (1970).

The term polity refers to "the particular system of church government upon which church members have agreed, including the structural allocation of authority within the church and the established procedures for resolving internal disputes." Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity-St. Michael’s Parish, Inc. v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut, supra, 224 Conn. at 804 n.8, 620 A.2d 1280.

Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut v. Gauss , supra , 302 Conn. 423, fn.10.

The court finds the March 2016 employment relationship in Exhibit 4 is religious in nature. The court finds that adjudicating the particular claims and defenses in this case will require the court to intervene into a religious institution’s exclusive right to decide matters pertaining to doctrine and/or its internal governance or organization. Dayner v. Archdiocese of Hartford, supra , 301 Conn. 761-62.

The court finds the nature of the cross examination already conducted in this case of Bishop Douglas has interfered with the church polity and the church’s exercise of the three procedures that has been taken consistent with Canonical provisions.

This court finds that the nature of a relief being sought in this case would entangle the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut into matters of religious hiring, religious practices and church polity. The court notes that there is no claim in this litigation concerning the title to the real property currently occupied by the Worshipping Community and formerly by St. Paul’s Parish of Darien, Connecticut.

The court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of proof that the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims made in this litigation. Fink v. Golenbock, supra , 238 Conn. 199, fn.13.

The court need not deal with the first claim in the Motion to Dismiss, that the plaintiffs lack standing. For to do so, the court would have to examine, scrutinize, analyze, and approve the June 14, 2018 "godly judgment," find that the Vestry violated the two steps of the June 14, 2018 "godly judgment," that the proper procedures were followed by the Episcopal Church Convention on October 26, 2018, and in accordance with the governing documents of the Episcopal Church Diocese of Connecticut and the National Episcopal Church, St. Paul’s Parish was declared no longer to be a Parish effective October 26, 2018 and was converted to a Worshipping Community effective October 26, 2018, wherein its supervisor was now Bishop Douglas, the Bishop Diocesan of the Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Connecticut.

For the reasons stated above the court hereby grants the Amended Motion to Dismiss dated October 31, 2018 (#133.00).