The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has been shaped by cases involving the ministerial exception for religious organizations. An example is Rohde v. Unitarian Universalist Association et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:2023-cv-05047).
In this case, former Unitarian Universalist minister Kathryn J. Rohde filed multiple claims against the UUA, the Unitarian Service Pension Society, and UUA official Sarah Lammert arising out of social media past made by the retired minister that did not sit well with the UUA establishment.
Rev. Rohde was among the first female UU ministers, serving for over 30 years. She was a victim of sexual harassment early in her career and later became an advocate for women and abuse survivors within the UU community. Rev. Rhode retired in 2014 but continued to participate in UU discussions, including on social media.
In 2020, Rohde posted in a private Facebook group with about 1,200 members. Three individuals found her posts offensive and reported them to the UUA. The UUA allegedly initiated a disciplinary process against Rohde, despite her being retired. Rohde claims the process was politically motivated, driven by a “woke” faction within the UUA. She was stripped of her ministerial credentials and retirement stipend, with no clear violation of UUA policies cited.
Rohde alleged two main claims. First, a defamation claim wherein Rev. Rohde alleges the UUA sent a mass email that damaged her character and reputation. The second was breach of contract where she asserted that the UUA and Pension Society breached contractual obligations, especially regarding her retirement benefits.
In a ruling on July 11, 2025, Judge Mary Kay Costello issued a mixed ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the ministerial exception to the First Amendment. Rev. Rohde’s claims of defamation, invasion of privacy (false light); tortious interference with contract, and breach of contract (specifically regarding her removal from fellowship and alleged procedural failures) were dismissed without prejudice. However, her claims of breach of contract, related to her retirement benefits, breach of contract against the Unitarian Service Pension Society and promissory estoppel were allowed to continue. The court also granted Rohde the opportunity to file an amended complaint by July 25, 2025, consistent with the court’s decision.
The case of Rohde v. Unitarian Universalist Association offers several important lessons for religious communities and their staff both legally and culturally. Here are a few key points to remember.
Governance and Accountability. The case prompts questions regarding the handling of disciplinary actions, particularly for retired clergy. It may lead to demands for clearer policies, safeguards for due process, and greater transparency in internal investigations and credentialing decisions.
Treatment of Retired Ministers. Rohde’s removal from fellowship and loss of retirement benefits could prompt scrutiny of how the UU community supports or disciplines retired clergy. It may lead to reforms to ensure retirement agreements are honored and not subjected to retroactive disciplinary actions.
Free Speech vs. Community Standards. The case underscores tensions between freedom of expression and community values, especially in online spaces. UU congregants and leaders may need to find ways to balance inclusivity with respecting diverse viewpoints, particularly on social media.
Internal Cultural Divides. Rohde claims her discipline was influenced by a “woke” faction within the UUA, indicating ideological splits within the denomination. This might spark wider discussions on political polarization, identity politics, and theological diversity in UU communities.
Legal and Financial Risk. This case may lead UU organizations to reassess their legal risks, particularly concerning employment and retirement agreements, defamation and privacy issues, and internal disciplinary processes.
Trust and Community Cohesion. Public legal disputes can damage trust among clergy, congregants, and leadership. The UU community might need to focus on healing processes, mediation, and restorative justice to mend relationships.
If you have any questions about the ministerial exception, please do not hesitate to contact Daniel Dalton or one of the professionals at Dalton & Tomich, PLC.
