• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Contact
  • Reviews

California Defamation Law Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Blogs
  • Archive Page
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Services
  • Contact Us
  • (626) 793-8607
You are here: Home / Articles / Gunn v. Mariners Church, Inc. – Recent decision on the “Ministerial Exception”

Gunn v. Mariners Church, Inc. – Recent decision on the “Ministerial Exception”

October 3, 2008 by Adrianos Facchetti Leave a Comment

In Gunn v. Mariners Church, Inc., __ Cal.App.4th __ (Sept. 2, 2008), the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which had granted defendant’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff and Appellant Gunn, sued for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gunn alleged that after the defendant terminated Gunn because he was homosexual, the defendant made several comments about Gunn in front of the church and others, which were allegedly defamatory. What is interesting about this case is the court’s detailed discussion of the “ministerial exception,” which “bars courts from reviewing employment decisions by religious organizations affecting employees who have religious duties of ministers” (citations omitted). The key to the court’s decision was that it was the defendant’s practice to inform the congregation that it had terminated a church employee and its reasons for doing so. Since that was the case here, the “ministerial exception” barred Gunn’s claims.

Also of note here is the point that the “ministerial exception” may apply to “post-termination acts if they were part of the process of termination.”

Buffer Share

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Defamation

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Some Featured

How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion

Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Recent Posts

Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?

Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?

Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Follow Us On

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Search

Footer

California Defamation Law Blog

Law Offices of Adrianos Facchetti 4444 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 308, Burbank, CA 91505
California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney of Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm, offering services related to libel, internet defamation, slander, defamation of character, disparagement, anti-SLAPP, personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trucking accidents, serving Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura County, San Bernardino, and throughout California.

Recent Posts

  • How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion July 18, 2022
  • Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 28, 2022
  • May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 24, 2022
  • Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law? June 20, 2022

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in