ILNews

Fired rabbi loses appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Bloomington rabbi terminated less than a year into his contract with Congregation Beth Shalom lost his case before the Indiana Court of Appeals. He claimed he was fired for reporting child abuse, but the congregation said his contract was terminated for other conduct that fell under the ministerial exception.

Beth Shalom entered into a contract with Steven Ballaban for him to serve as rabbi for three years. He was fired nearly a year later in 2010 due to the board of directors’ view that Ballaban was unable or unwilling to fulfill the expectations for rabbinic behavior, put the tax-exempt status of the congregation at risk, breached the congregation’s guidelines’ sacred duty of confidence on at least two occasions, and was hostile toward employees. Ballaban argued that he was fired because he previously had exchanged email messages with several people regarding concerns of child abuse by a teacher. That abuse claim was later unsubstantiated by the Department of Child Services.

After Ballaban filed a lawsuit following his termination, the congregation argued that the ministerial exception applies. Ballaban claimed reporting child abuse would fall outside of that exception and allow his suit to proceed. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Beth Shalom and other defendants.

Judges Elaine Brown, L. Mark Bailey and Nancy Vaidik each wrote opinions on this case, with Bailey and Vaidik concurring with Brown’s opinion that summary judgment was proper for the defendants.

Brown wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t decided whether the ministerial exception applies when a minister is fired or impacted for reporting or attempting to report child abuse. She found it’s not necessary to decide that yet because the record supports the ruling that the ministerial exception applies.

Bailey noted that the record doesn’t include Ballaban’s complaint or amended complaint, but it appears he brought claims of breach of contract, tortious interference with a contract, negligent failure to supervise, defamation and invasion of privacy. He pointed to a letter to Ballaban designated as evidence by Beth Shalom that reasons for his termination included “conduct unbecoming a spiritual leader,” and that he had been counseled by another rabbi about his behavior. Ballaban never designated materials showing that the termination was prompted solely by the reports of child abuse.

Vaidik wrote that the ministerial exception doesn’t allow a congregation to fire a spiritual leader who refuses to commit a criminal offense and failure to report child abuse is a criminal offense. But the designated evidence doesn’t reveal the reason Ballaban was fired was his child-abuse reporting, so she concurred in result.

All of the judges agreed in Steven A. Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Community, Inc., a/k/a Congregation Beth Shalom, Paul Eisenberg, Judith Rose, Sarah Wasserman, Lynne Foster Shifriss, and Roberta "Didi" Kerler, 53A01-1207-CT-315, that Beth Shalom is not entitled to appellate attorney fees.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT