Gist of the Case
Plaintiff, Rachel Kellogg, alleges that she should be reimbursed for tithing that she paid to the church due to threats of termination.
Main Legal Question
Did Churchome violate Washington law in its practice of requiring employees to donate 10% of their employment income back to the Church?
Why I Find This Case Interesting
This one hits a bit close to home. I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS church). The LDS Church teaches that the Lord commands church members to pay 10% of their “annual increase” to the Church. “Annual increase” is understood to be income.
Recently, tithing funds have been under attack in two prominent court cases based on allegations of fraudulent inducement. The first case, Hunstman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was filed in California and was thrown out by the court. Hunstman then filed an appeal. That appeal is still pending in the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 21-56056.
The second case, Gaddy v. the Corporation of the President of the Church, was also thrown out just last month (March 2023). This case was brought as a class action on behalf of all LDS church members who were fraudulently induced into paying tithing to the Church. It is possible that Gaddy will, like Hunstman, appeal the ruling.
Both of these cases were pursued by members-at-large of the LDS church. The result is not surprising. It is difficult to attack a church in relation to tithing donations. Courts just aren’t able to adjudicate religious teachings and beliefs under the First Amendment.
What makes the Churchome case different from these two cases is that is an employee of the church rather than a member-at-large. It is therefore not based on fraudulent inducement but on alleged improper handling of wages. It will be interesting to see if this makes any difference in the outcome.
Another reason why this case is interesting is that Churchome has been endorsed by a number of celebrities, including Russell Wilson, Justin Bieber, and Lana Del Rey. I don’t consider myself to be a person that cares too much about celebrity tabloids, but I admit it does make things more interesting. And I did follow the Johnny Depp trial probably more than I should have.
I first learned about this case here: https://www.knkx.org/law/2023-03-28/seattle-area-megachurch-and-pastor-judah-smith-sued-for-allegedly-forcing-staff-to-donate
Complaint Details
Basic Information
Court: WA Superior Court, King County
Case No.: 23-2-05119-0
Date filed: March 21, 2023
Caption: Kellogg v. Churchome, et al.
Online docket: https://dja-prd-ecexap1.kingcounty.gov/?q=Home
The Parties
Rachel Kellogg, Plaintiff
In December 2019, Kellogg was hired by Churchome as a Production Assistant. She changed roles to a Brand Video Editor and then changed to a Post-Production Producer in March 2022, which is her current position. She is presently a remote employee working out of Greenville, South Carolina.
Based on her private Instagram Account, it appears that she is Christian since she makes a reference to Jesus: “thank you Jesus for new life.”
Kellogg is a current employee of Churchome while she pursues this class action lawsuit against it. I’m sure that’s not awkward for everyone.
Churchome, Defendant
Churchome was incorporated as a nonprofit religious corporation under Washington law in March 1992. It operates locations in the greater Seattle and Los Angeles areas. In March 2020, it introduced a Church@Home model, which is a program that allows people to experience church in other locations or virtually. Churchome is primarily supported by the tithes and offerings of its members.
As to these tithes and offerings, in its most recent annual report for the fiscal year ending June 2022, the church reports that it received almost $8.8 million. This was actually down from the prior year’s donations of over $11 million. However, it did sell some real property in Issaquah, WA for a handsome gain.
Former Seattle Seahawks quarterback, Russell Wilson, is on the board of directors of the church. According to Churchome’s website, Wilson, as with the other board members, receives “regular communications about the direction and finances of the church, and meets quarterly.” He would also participate in “provide[ing] oversight and strategic leadership to accomplish the mission God has called us to.”
Again, Wilson’s involvement in the church is neither here nor there in this case, but it is at least interesting to see where he is involved in things.
Judah and Chelsea Smith, Defendants
Judah Smith is the “Lead Communicator” and Chelsea Smith is the “Lead Theologian.” I take it that they are the main leaders of the organization but I don’t know for sure. Their picture on Churchome’s website is bigger and above the CEO’s picture. Judah Smith is also the person identified as the “governor” of the organization on WA Secretary of State filings. It would be interesting to see an organizational chart.
David Kroll, Defendant
Kroll is the CEO of Churchome. According to his Linkedin profile, he was in the corporate and finance world until he took a position as a youth pastor at Churchome in 2013. He worked his way up until he was made CEO in October 2019. He is also a co-chaplain for the Seattle Seahawks. I did not even know football teams have chaplains.
Legal Causes of Action
If you haven’t reviewed my article on Understanding the Five Phases of Civil Litigation, you should do so now. Any claim for relief must be based on a legal “cause of action” or a specific rule of law that was broken. Each cause of action has certain elements that the plaintiff must prove. In this case, Kellogg asserts four causes of action, all based on specific statutes:
- Unlawful rebate (or taking) of wages.
- Unlawful deduction of wages.
- Deceptive Acts in Violation of Consumer Protection Act.
- Unfair Act in Violation of Consumer Protection Act.
Class Action
Kellogg is pursuing the case in her individual capacity and as a representative of a potential (or putative) class. I’m not going to address that class claim at this point in time, but I may discuss class issues depending on how things develop. If you are interested in this, join my email list and let me know.
The Story of the Case
Churchome is a Christian church that believes in tithing 10% of your income, just like many other Christians. Since the church believes in tithing, it wants all of its employees to follow that principle and be exemplary Christians. Therefore, the church requires its employees to tithe. This is stated in their employee handbook, which specifically states “As an employee of the Church, we expect you to: … tithe….”
It also provides the reasoning for this requirement.
As Church leaders, we must strive to be an example in our attitudes and choices. We must not use our freedom in ways that cause others to stumble (Romans 14) and must consider whether our choices in areas of conscience not only comply with Biblical guidelines and state and federal laws, but are helpful to us and to others (1 Corinthians 6:12).
In other words, the church can’t be asking its members to believe and follow the principle of tithing if the employees of the church are not even doing it.
When Kellogg was hired, all she saw was the job posting for the position. The posting didn’t say anything about tithing specifically. Instead, it stated the specific job responsibilities, duties, and qualifications needed. However, the posting did state as follows:
Employees of Churchome must comply with the policies, procedures, requirements, and responsibilities set forth in the staff handbook and the church’s other manuals and directives, as revised by the church from time to time. These include, for example, attendance at the weekly staff meeting, lifestyle expectations and church attendance expectations. This job description is subject to revision by Churchome at any time and for any reason. Nothing in this job description shall be construed as an implied agreement or promise of specific treatment of an employee, and it does not change the at-will employment relationship between the employee and Churchome.
However, Kellogg went through the interview process and orientation without anyone mentioning anything about tithing. She was not aware of any obligations to tithe to the church. Whether she was given a copy of the employment policies to review is unknown at this time.
About four months into her employment, Judah Smith held a company meeting. In this meeting, Smith reminded all of the employees of the importance of tithing, shared some scriptures about tithing, and indicated that the employees of the church need to be on board with this principle or they could be terminated.
Smith stated that he did not care whether other people tithed, but that he expected staff members and pastors of a church to tithe. He purportedly said, “You are not as invested as you think you are if there’s not a money trail.”
After this meeting, to avoid negative consequences, Kellogg agreed to tithe 10% of her salary to the church. The church then began deducting this 10% from her paychecks.
Kellogg continued paying tithes until August 2020, when she was in an auto accident. According to the lawsuit, this accident “left her with serious injuries.” However, a Linkedin post by Kellogg indicates that doctors and paramedics remarked that she was “lucky [she] wasn’t badly injured.”
Regardless of the extent of her injuries, Kellogg purchased a replacement vehicle that resulted in a higher car payment. She also had her rent increase. As a result of these increased expenses, Kellogg felt she could no longer afford to tithe and stopped paying for all of 2021.
In November 2021, church leadership began to express their concerns to Kellogg about her lack of tithing. She indicated to her supervisor that she would begin tithing again in January 2022.
She did not do so.
As a result, she received a written reprimand asking her to “get in rhythm with our company policy on tithing.”
In 2022, Kellogg tithed sporadically and less than 10% of her pay.
Therefore, in 2023, her supervisor began reminding her again of the tithing requirements and reasoning. He stated:
With it being a practice of our faith on the team it is expected if you’re on the team that you tithe and if not it does sound like that would lead to being removed from staff.
It is not clear whether Kellogg has again started tithing. Given that the lawsuit was filed in March 2023, my suspicion is that she filed this lawsuit rather than begin tithing again. It also appears that she has not been terminated.
Read the Lawsuit Yourself
I’ve given you my rendition of the story based on what I’ve seen so far. Obviously, the Complaint is one-sided and I’ve tried to present the story with a little more balance. I’m trying my best to look at cases objectively while leaving the actual outcome up to the judge or jury.
Here is a copy of the Complaint if you would like to read it for yourself:
I will say that my initial reaction, without getting into the legal merits, is that I don’t particularly like Kellogg’s position. Her entire premise is that the job posting did not disclose the tithing requirement. But it did inform her that she would have to abide by all company policies, including future revisions to the policy. She was informed of the policy, chose to abide by it, and only later decided she did not want to do so.
To me, it all boils down to whether the law allows a church to require its employees to tithe. Or, put another way, can the law prohibit a religious organization from requiring its employees to abide by the tenets of the religion, including the requirement to tithe? My initial impression is that the answer is “no.”
What happens next and what do you think?
Assuming this lawsuit was served on the defendants, they would have 21 days to respond. Often, the plaintiff’s attorney will grant additional time to respond at the request of a defendant. This is an extremely common courtesy on both sides of the aisle.
So I will be monitoring the docket. In the meantime, my next post on this case will be my reaction and analysis. If you would like to follow along, please subscribe!
Also, what’s your initial reaction to the case? I’d be interested to know what you think. Leave a comment below.
