CORRECTED: NOVEMBER 2, 2017 RENDERED: NOVEMBER 2, 2017 TO BE PUBLISHED

cSuprttttt <trnurf SAINT AUGUSTINE SCHOOL; APPELLANTS DIOCESE OF COVINGTON

ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS v. CASE NO. 2014-CA-001518 . BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 13-CI-00024

JANET CROPPER APPELLEE

OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON AFFIRMING AND REMANDING Janet Cropper was dismissed from her job as the lay administrator of Saint Augustine School, an elementary school affiliated with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Coving~on. She then brought this action against the diocese, the school, and the pastor of the Saint Augustine Churchl, claiming damages for, among other theories of recovery, breach of her ~mployment contract. On discretionary review, we hold that the trial court ~d the Court of Appeals panel did not err when they ruled-for·different reasons-that Cropper is

i The appellants are collectively referred to as Saint Augustine in this opinion. not barred from asserting her breach-of-contract claim. In affirming the result reached by the Court of Appeals panel, we reject the argument from the diocese that the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine' bars this breach of contract claim.

Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington employed- Janet Cropper to be the lay administrator of Saint Augustine School for the 2011-12 academic year.

Near the ·end of the 2011-12 school tehn, the diocese renewed Cropper's employment contra~t for the following academic year. But on the eve of the opening of the school term, Father Gregory Bach, Saint Augustine's Pastor, informed Cropper that her job as lay administrator was eliminated and her employment with the diocese was terminated, stemming from the school's declining enrollment and dwindling operating fu~ds.

Cropper then sued Saint Augustine 'for, among other theories of recovery, breach of her employment contract. Both Cropper and Saint Augustine filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of Cropper that her claims were not barred by the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine but ultimately ruled in favor of Saint Augustine that, as a matter of ~aw, Cropper · could not show a breach of her employment contract. Cropper appealed the trial court'~ decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination that Cropper could not prove a breach of contract and remanded - . . the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The appeals panel rejected

· the application of the ministerial-exception doctrine without mentioning.the· application of the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine.

·II. ANALYSIS.

A. Standard of Review.

We review a trial court's granting of a party's summary judgment motion de novo.2 "On appeal, '[t]he standard of review ... of a summru:y judgment is whether the circuit judge correctly found that there were no issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to a judgment as a matter · of law."'3 B. Substantive Analysis.

Saint Augustine argues that the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine bars Cropper from asserting a claim for damages for breach of her employment contract. As a matter of clarification, both the ecclesiastical-abstention and ministerial-exception doctrines operate as affirmative defens~s. not as jurisdiCtional bars, that the party asserting the defenses bears the burden of proving.4 We note that Saint Augustine not only did not argue 1;hat the ministerial- ' '

exception doctrine applies in its defense, but ~pecifically asserted that it is not arguing for the application of this doctri~e to the facts of this case:

1. Ecclesiastical-Abstention Doctrl.ne.

The ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine prohibits secular courts from adjudicating predominantly religious issues, such as disputes relating to faith, doctrine, and denominational governance because doing so violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.6 We recognized the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine in Kentucky law in Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary: At bottom, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is primarily interested in preventing any chilling effect on church practices as a result of government intrusion in the form of sec:ular courts. But when the case merely involves a church, or even a minister, but does not require the interpretation of actual church doctrine, courts need not invoke the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. No entanglement concern arises as a result of the mere inference of religion. Courts must "look not at the label placed on the action but at the actual Issues the court has been asked to decide." 7 This court in Saint Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v. Edwards also expounded . on the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine: But churches are not the only [beneficiaries] of ecclesiastical abstention. All religious organizations are entitled to protection under the First Amendment, so all suits that present an ecclesiastical character, those "which concern theological s Brief for Appellant at 31.

This case mirrors the factual circumstances of Kirby almost perfectly. In Kirby, this court held the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine not to apply to a breach-of-contract claim raised by a tenured professor, Kirby, who taught Christian social ethics at the Lexington Theological Sem.inary.10 The Seminary

a 449 S.W.3d at 739.

terminated her position because enrollment was dropping and money was tight. We follow this Court's rejection of the Lexington Theology Seminary's ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine defen~e in Kirby by rejecting Saint Augustine's ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine defense today.

Therefore, we hold that the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine affirmative· defense does not apply in this case because Cropper's "breach-of-contract . . claim requires no inspection or evaluation of church doctrine. Neutral principles of law can be applied. According, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply .... "12 III. CONCLUSION.

We affirm the result-reached by the Court of Appeals panel and hold that the ecclesiastical abstention do?trine does not apply to the facts of this case." Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

All sitting. All concur.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: .

Richard G. Meyer Nicholas Charles Birkenhauer Dressman Benzinger Lavelle PSC COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Gail Marie Langendorf Busald, Funk & Zevely, PSC

ciupr:em:e filnurf nf ~:enfurku 2016-SC-000243-DG

SAINT AUGUSTINE SCHOOL; APPELLANTS DIOCESE OF COVINGTON

ON R~VIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS v. CASE NO. 2014-CA-001518 BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 13-CI-00024

JANET CROPPER APPELLEE

ORDER CORRECTING

The Opinion of the Court rendered November 2, 2017 is corrected on its face by substitution of the attached Opinion in lieu of the original Opinion.

Said correction does not affect the holding of the original Opinion of the Court.

ENTERED: November 2, 2017