Can Utah courts hear tort claims against clergy for counseling malpractice? Franco v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Franco v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints definitively establishes that tort claims against clergy for alleged counseling malpractice are barred by the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Background and facts: Franco was sexually abused as a child and later sought ecclesiastical counseling from LDS Church leaders. During counseling, the leaders advised her to “forgive, forget, and seek Atonement” and referred her to an unlicensed therapist. Franco sued for gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. The district court dismissed all claims under rule 12(b)(6).

Key legal issues: Whether tort claims against clergy for alleged mishandling of ecclesiastical counseling violate the First Amendment’s excessive entanglement doctrine, and whether the specific tort claims stated viable causes of action under Utah law.

Court’s analysis and holding: The court applied the Lemon test’s excessive entanglement prong, noting that determining clergy malpractice would require courts to establish standards of care for ecclesiastical counseling across diverse religious denominations. This would “embroil the courts in establishing the training, skill, and standards applicable for members of the clergy” in violation of the Establishment Clause. The court rejected Franco’s argument that her negligence-based claims differed from clergy malpractice, finding them “merely an elliptical way of alleging clergy malpractice.” The court also held that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed because referring to an unlicensed counselor without knowledge of the lack of licensure was not “outrageous and intolerable.” The fraud claim failed because evidence showed the referred counselor actually held a Ph.D. in counseling.

Practice implications: This decision provides strong protection for religious institutions against tort liability arising from ecclesiastical counseling. Practitioners defending such claims should emphasize the excessive entanglement doctrine and focus on the substance rather than the labels of tort theories. The decision also demonstrates Utah courts’ reluctance to impose secular standards of care on religious counseling activities.