Mar 20
Klouda case dismissed by Judge McBryde . . .
Topic: Uncategorized| Written by: Benjamin Cole|Judge McBryde has granted Defendant Patterson’s motion for summary judgment. He has issued a lengthy opinion in the case and issued an order for Defendant Patterson to recover court fees from Sheri Klouda. (Of course, I predict that Patterson will be magnanimous and decline to pursue those costs from Klouda.)
The documents follow:
March 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Sad day for Klouda. I’m not surprised because the courts have shown a great reluctanct to get involved in anything resembling an internal church matter. She was treated unjustly by SWBTS, but sadly there is no recourse in the courts for her.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I think the judge got this right and found this quote fascinating:
“The court is satisfied from the summary judgment record that the decision of Patterson and the others members of Seminary’s Board of Trustees to terminate the plaintiff was religiously motivated. No rational finder of fact could make a finding to the contrary. The employment decision was the product of a sincerely held religious belief on the part of Patterson and members of the Board of Trustees; and, the summary judgment record so strongly suppors such a finding that no reasonable find of fact could find otherwise. There is no counterbalance that would outweigh the interest evidenced by the First Amendment in protecting the sanctity of the decision-making of defendants that resulted in the termination of plaintiff’s employment.”
(page 43 of document 78-2
March 20th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The sadness it is, for the Klouda family, can’t compare to the sadness the SBC and related entities will eventually realize.
Payday. Someday.
Personally, I think God will simply leave it to the powers to do whatever is right in their own sight.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
This is a great day for Southern Baptist, Evangelicals, and the Church as a whole. To think of the legal ramifications of the state getting involved with private Christian institutions is simply chilling. If this would have gone through and she would have won, it would have led to multiple groups suing other Christian institutions on the basis of discrimination (what we would define as Biblical conviction/mandates/qualifications). Just imagine, homosexuals filing class action suit against seminaries for discrimination… we should all give Thanks that God protected us from ourselves, one day this may not be the case.
As for Klouda, it was a sad day when she filed. Not to dismiss Patterson as beyond reproach, but she should have never filed a lawsuit. It is great to see her flesh was struck down by the courts. Again, this is a great decision by the court.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hmmmm,
So a “sincerely held religious belief” can, in Judge McBryde’s mind, license the dismissal of a seminary professor for being female, yet a Santiera priest has no constitutional protection when it comes to his “sincerely held beliefs” regarding animal sacrfice. Seems to me that some ecclesiastical beliefs are more worthy of protection than others.
Brother Bob, well said,
From Jeremiah:
Your own wickedness will correct you,And your apostasies will reprove you;
Know therefore and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the LORD your God,And the dread of Me is not in you,” declares the Lord GOD of hosts.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Cole Hedgecock:
Be sure to always throw in the homosexuals to try and make a point. I 100% disagree with your comments!!
March 20th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Ben!? Whats this! No lengthy diatribe about Dr. Patterson’s victory? No crude humor? I know you can do better. Maybe we could actually discuss how to reach more people with the gospel, but that would be building the body of Christ instead of tearing it apart. Nothing wrong with discussing issues and even issue about Dr. Patterson but I would hope we all would see that it profits us nothing to continually tear each other down. Via La Reformation to this sights content.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“It is great to see her flesh was struck down by the courts. Again, this is a great decision by the court.”
Just wait until they decide Sharia law can be practiced within the US for sincere religious beliefs.
Wait, come to think of it, reading your post, you probably would agree with Sharia law.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“It is great to see her flesh was struck down by the courts. Again, this is a great decision by the court.”
what an absolutely arrogant and disgusting comment.
I applaud Dr. Klouda for her courage to stand up for herself. Whether it was right or wrong for her to bring suit was between her and God and not for anyone or any court to judge “her flesh.”
Sad for our denomination. Again.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Larry:
Patience, dear boy. Patience.
This is just a beginning.
BSC
March 20th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
This is such a sad day for authentic Christians, and the Klouda family. Maybe our continually declining churches is God’s judgment upon us.
Tim Dahl
March 20th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
and rsc calls himself a Christian? It is a sad day when a Christian leader can,in the name of the Lord, destroy a family, care nothing for their welfare and cause them to lose everything. We shall yet see the fall of those who would speak out of both sides of their face. It is obvious that some of our bloggers (rsc in particular) have already been lost as he rejoices in the sadness and pain of an innocent family.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
dhy, are you sure you read my comment? I was responding to Mr. Cole who desires to see Dr. Klouda’s flesh struck down (even more, it would seem, than what her brothers in Christ have done to her.) Nice guy. How would you like to have him as your pastor?
I will get flamed for this but I think Patterson is a greedy thug that the stakeholders should send packing…pronto. And the Trustees with him.
But, I tell you what makes me angry. Not the decision by the judge but the smug rejoicing of the Patterson clones. I have come to the conclusion that they think Klouda got what she deserved because she dared to forget her ‘place’. They have a skewed view of sin. Klouda was in sin/Patterson was righteous. See, we have to ‘hurt’ innocent people to be righteous.
The other part that makes me angry is without a court case, we will never get to see what liars they all are.
Rarely, on this blog, have I seen one Patterson clone show any compassion for this poor woman and her family.
Their concern for separation of church and state is actually quite amusing. Let’s see…can you say, ‘tax status’ as a church? If they are serious about this issue, then let them pay taxes like any other organization. And give up their tax perks as a minister. Put your money where your mouth is, guys.
The other amusing thing about this issue is that all ‘positions’ are eventually taken to their extreme. That is why I mentioned Sharia law. I expect to see a ruling on that from the 9th District any time now.
They can’t have it both ways. Are we a Chrisitian nation or do we have separation of church and state. (We know we aren’t a Christian nation)
It ain’t 1783 anymore, gentlemen.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
According to the centennial anniversary handbook recently mailed by SWBTS to everyone on its mailing list, Dr. Dilday was “dismissed”–so, maybe the present administration will, as suggested, be likewise gracious and not collect court costs from Dr. Klouda. But who knows?
March 20th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Did I read the Summary Judgement right? (page 20-21)Patterson told her in August 2004 she would not be given tenure and yet,he would allow her to stay on until Spring 2007, if necessary, with the same pay and benefits. Um, I’ve never taken a stand on this whole issue but I do have to say, right or wrong, that is a pretty generous time frame. The impression given all along has been that she was ousted pretty quick.
Chris
March 20th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Does this mean we can finally stop calling him “Defendant Patterson”? I’m sure someone on this site will call him that again and use that clever strike-through font.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Does this mean we can call the Conservative Resurgence a “momentary lax of parameters?”
March 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am
“Um, I’ve never taken a stand on this whole issue but I do have to say, right or wrong, that is a pretty generous time frame. The impression given all along has been that she was ousted pretty quick.”
Chris, Do you have a doctorate?
March 21st, 2008 at 12:40 am
I find that many of the comments relating to this matter reflect that the writers are too invested in a particular outcome to have a mature understanding of what has been decided.
It is apparent that the court tried to be consistent and to apply the rules that have been developed in our religious/employment matters to this case. It appears that the court has done so.
It is good that the court is following rules that have been used in other cases. We would not want the court to do otherwise, or to craft a rule that applied only in SBC cases. That would not be just.
The key sentence for me in understanding this opinion is, “Civil courts are not an appropriate forum for review of internal ecclesiastical decisions.” If that’s the rule the courts use for other cases, the courts should use it here. As I read about this case, that was the thought that kept coming to my mind, i.e., that Dr. K, and others who wanted this case to be a vehicle for their plans or opinions, were asking the court to decide what is, or what should be, proper Baptist doctrine. That seemed problematic from the beginning.
If Dr. P and SWBTS violated criminal or civil law, then the courts should hold that. If they did not, then the courts should hold that.
We all should rejoice that the courts applied the rules in an unbiased way to this situation, and we should be glad that our institutions have not been found to have breached a contract, committed defamation, defrauded anyone or violated any law. We may feel sorry for Dr. K, and some of us may agree with her position on the issue of women teaching Hebrew. But truly none of us should feel disappointment that the court has not found any violation of civil or criminal law.
We would all like to see some consistency here. Dr. K’s being hired by Dr. Hemphill and the disagreement between the trustees at that time, and then Dr. P’s not renewing her contract does not show a pattern of predictable consistency for which we should strive. But the court found nothing nefarious in the actions of any persons here.
I hope and pray that we can all move forward with the Gospel, and that our energies can be directed in that way.
God bless.
Louis
March 21st, 2008 at 2:26 am
I’m disappointed, hurting for Dr. Klouda, as disgusted as Lee at the comment he mentioned. Mistreatment of somone without cause is something I would divide over.
March 21st, 2008 at 10:01 am
Being new to this, I am somewhat surprised by the aggressive nature of the personal attacks. Perhaps I am naive, but why the blatant hostility? My point was not to defend Patterson (I am not a fan/clone of his), it was in opposition of the lawsuit in general.
It does not matter what a Christian’s gripe is, the court room is not the place to handle disagreements. There were other avenues she could have pursued to seek compensation… for instance, I know the Outpost has the ear of Frank Page, and he could have been her advocate with the right people. Also, Wade and other have organized causes to send her money and help her out in times of need, which was a great thing.
My point was this, “be controlled by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of your flesh.” For being accusatory or demeaning, I apologize, that was not my intent. I am glad the case was dismissed, for all of us, not for Patterson or against Klouda. My point was that if they would have ruled against SWBTS it would have lead to religious institutions not being able to use any religious belief as qualifications, we do not want that. The Shriar law comment is ridiculous.
For my own benefit, could someone clarify the point of this website. Is it to bash anyone who has differing views than the authors? Is it to be informative? Is it to let everyone know how bad the SBC is? After a week of looking, I have my questions.
March 21st, 2008 at 10:15 am
I bet BC hasn’t been this disappointed since the Bush-Gore decision in 2000.
March 21st, 2008 at 10:47 am
RSC,
I wasn’t sure what you were jesting at? At the risk of sounding foolish or redundant, I’ll explain my point.
Wade has set up a foundation on behalf of the Klouda family because of the financial harm SWBTS supposedly had caused them. This view is partly based on the belief she was not given tenure and was in essence left without a job, money, or any direction…without much notice.
But, that does not appear to be the case at all. She had up to a 3 year notice that she wasn’t going to be given tenure. And, the Judgement also points out that she was offered another position at SWBTS without a reduction in pay or benefits.
My point is simple. No matter what one’s viewpoint is on this whole issue, you can’t claim that they did her wrong by kicking her out on the street. They did no such thing. According to the judgement, SWBTS showed great care to give her time and finanical support to find another job. She actually chose to leave 4-8 months earlier then she had to and that was after over two years of awareness that the day would come that she would either have to leave or take another position at SWBTS.
March 21st, 2008 at 10:59 am
“We would all like to see some consistency here. Dr. K’s being hired by Dr. Hemphill and the disagreement between the trustees at that time, and then Dr. P’s not renewing her contract does not show a pattern of predictable consistency for which we should strive. But the court found nothing nefarious in the actions of any persons here.”
Louis,
I appreciate the tempered response all except for a couple of factual issues with the above paragraph.
1. The Trustees didn’t have a disagreement at the time of Dr. K’s hiring, she was elected unanimously.
2. The court did not rule that there was nothing nefarious was present, but said that it did not have jurisdiction to investigate. Nefarious intent is undetermined.
March 21st, 2008 at 11:30 am
Chris, You are right. It is not a big deal. She only spent how many years/money getting a PhD to teach and then get hired at SWBTS to teach men. I mean, what was she thinking?
She should be thankful they changed administrations and their minds about women teaching. They are sooooo much more spiritual now that they did this to her. Now, they are true men of God.
And, I am sure the written guarantee for a permanent library job is out there somewhere. I mean after all, she should trust these guys with her life…her family, finances and profession! They are Elders, right? It’s not like they did not tell her her job was safe or anything then change their minds.
I think she is a big baby to have filed this. (typical woman, right? It’s never enough) They did everything they could for her considering the ONLY reason she was ousted from teaching Hebrew is because SHE IS A WOMAN and we all know it is a heinous sin for man to learn anything from a woman. He might decide to start wearing turtlenecks or maybe even show compassion to others. We cannot have that.
Or, WORSE, she might get uppity and think she is smarter (even though she is, we cannot let her think that) and want MORE.
How dare her. She was treated like a Queen by these loving men and she had the nerve to sue.
March 21st, 2008 at 11:43 am
Art:
Thanks for the comment.
The court mentioned the disagreement between the trustees at the time of Dr. K’s hiring and the special arrangement that was crafted to address the concerns of some trustees. That’s what I referenced.
Also, the court not only found that as a matter of law that it had no jurisdiction (which was the bulk of the opinion), but the court also went further and held that even if it had jurisdiction, there was no breach of contract, fraud, promissory estoppel or defamation. Those are significant findings, and should give us all some comfort.
I have read many court opinions where the court said it had no jurisdiction, but then went out of its way to express displeasure at the acts of one or more of the parties. That did not happen in this case.
The court apparently wanted to make a statement that there was no fraud, breach of contract or defamation, irrespective of the juridictional issue.
This part is at the end of the opinion.
That’s what I was referring to.
Take care.
Louis
March 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I would say two things, then duck.
1) In terms of religious liberty in America, the Klouda decision was probably the right one, and the best thing for religion as a whole in America. The courts should not easily intervene in the internal affairs of religious institutions.
2) The judge determined that Dr. P had the RIGHT to fire Dr. Klouda, however that did not make it right.
I will say it again. The convention needs to speak and be heard on issues like this. It should not be left up to the personal viewpoint of a Seminary president.
Whether a theology professor is a “minister” is a topic we need to debate as a convention and decide as a convention.
I am astounded at the anger and bitterness this subject has generated. It is kind of scary.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
This is sad for all involved. Neither side should have any self-righteous partisans. Money, time, and feelings have been wasted.
May her family be blessed with needed opportunities and resources and may SWBTS eagerly pursue its founding mission.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I vote for Dave Miller and Kevin for comments of the day!
Louis
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Hey rsc,
Calm down a little. You are barking up the wrong tree with me. As I said earlier, “Um, I’ve never taken a stand on this whole issue…”
You went on a diatribe with me about the whole Klouda issue. I only pointed out one aspect that I believe hadn’t been explained clearly. I am in no way criticizing what she did nor am I agreeing with how this was handled by SWBTS. I have a few opinions but I’ve not shared them. And there is more I’m not sure about then I am.
So, next time, read the comments here a little more carefully. My point was simple. She had a long time to prepare for her exit. That’s all I’m saying. It wasn’t a quick firing nor was she pressured to resign quickly.
Geez, people are very tense these days…
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
“She had a long time to prepare for her exit.”
And a VERY long time to prepare for her entrance there as a Hebrew Prof. Don’t forget, she was only taken out because of her gender and we all know the Bible says women cannot teach men Hebrew. Let’s not forget the main thing. She was in sin for being a smart woman.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
In terms of religious liberty in America, the Klouda decision was probably the right one, and the best thing for religion as a whole in America. The courts should not easily intervene in the internal affairs of religious institutions.
Really?
So, on that basis THIS SAME JUDGE should have upheld the sincere ecclesiastical beliefs that lay behind a Santiera priest’s practice of animal sacrifice - that’s what nobody here seems to realize.
If you’re going to frame the issue in terms of “religious liberty” then the judge should not have held that the priest should not be allowed to practice those sacrifices within the city/county limits.
So, on the one hand, he says the court has no jurisdiction in the internal affairs of SWBTS with respect to who it hires and fires, yet on the other he feels its fine and dandy for the local government to regulate the religious practices within certain geographical boundaries.
Those two decisions pull in logically opposite directions.