Loma Linda University Opinion Cited in Case Against La Sierra University

Where does religious freedom end and first amendment speech rights begin? Or vice-versa?

In Loma Linda University’s opinion, the answer is clear.

“Courts risk both establishing certain religions and prohibiting the free exercise of others when they undertake to define the ways in which the law will recognize religious expression,” according to Edward R. Nichols, legal counsel on behalf of Loma Linda University and a handful of other religious establishments. He wrote the opinion in a brief that been cited in a case involving the firing of three La Sierra University employees.

“Courts are ill-suited to declare what is religiously orthodox and who may convey the orthodox faith and teachings for any,” the brief said.

The brief was originally part of the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that a Lutheran school's decision to dismiss a teacher cannot be challenged under federal employment laws.

The ruling now sets the stage for a lawsuit filed in July 2011 by three former La Sierra University staffers naming three staffers at Riverside-based La Sierra University, the university itself, the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and North American Division Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists continues to wind through civil court.

Attorneys with Redlands-based McCune Wright LLP filed the suit on behalf of Jeffry M. Kaatz, former vice president for advancement; James W. Beach, former dean of the college of arts; and Gary L. Bradley, a former professor of biology who had officially retired as the university’s director of research of the university’s honor’s program.

The suit alleges they were wrongfully fired by Ricardo Graham, the chairman of the La Sierra board of directors and a top Seventh-day Adventist Church official.

The men claim Graham forced them to resign after hearing a recording of the three criticizing him, Larry Blackmer, vice president of education, and Daniel Jackson, president of Defendant North American Division Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists. According to the suit, the recording was made illegally at Beach’s home during a heated discussion on the college’s accreditation.

Attorney Michael Connally, with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, who represents the defendants, says the case is not about freedom of speech but about three men who tried to dictate the direction of a religious institution.

“Cases construing the first amendment clearly prohibit courts from doing what plaintiff’s are asking the courts to do, adjudicate who should lead a religious organization and dictate how those religious organizations should govern themselves,” Connally wrote in the challenge to the original complaint.

On March 21, the defense filed challenges to a recently amended complaint. The plaintiff's lawyer, Richard McCune, said a ruling on those would not be heard until the next court date April 25.

The process for the former employees has been difficult, McCune said, but “it is what it is. They are committed to what we have started so nothing has changed.”