Paul v. Watchtower Bible And Tract Society Of New York, Inc.

819 F.2d 875 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was raised as a Jehovah's Witness (D), and her mother was very active in the Church. P attended church meetings from the age of four. In 1967, P officially joined D and was baptized. P was extremely active in the church devoting an average of 40 hours per month in door-to-door distribution of D's publications. In addition to engaging in evening home bible study, she attended church with her family approximately 20 hours per month. She eventually married another member of the D. In 1975, D's parents were 'disfellowshiped' from the Church. P decided that she no longer wished to belong to the congregation, or to remain affiliated with D. In November 1975, P wrote a letter to the congregation withdrawing from the Church. At the time, P disassociated, there was no express sanction for withdrawing from membership. In September 1981, D issued a new interpretation of the rules governing disassociated persons; disassociated members were not to be treated as disfellowed members. D based its announcement on a reading of various passages of the Bible. When P returned to the area of her former congregation, she was shunned by former friends. P a resident of Alaska, brought suit in Washington State Superior Court alleging common law torts of defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud, and outrageous conduct. D removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (1982). D moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Washington law. D sought summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). The district court denied the 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim but granted the motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that even if the practice of shunning was actionable, the court was prohibited from ruling on the issue on the ground of ecclesiastical abstention. This appeal resulted.