In December, this column addressed a recent Court of Appeal ruling that the First Amendment-based ministerial exception, barring ministers from bringing certain claims against their religious employers, does not categorically bar a minister’s claims for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime.

In Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, Division Five of the San Francisco-based First District Court of Appeal concluded “the ministerial exception does not bar every employment claim for lost or unpaid wages. Instead, it only bars those claims that necessarily require an inquiry into a religious entity’s internal government that are closely linked to the entity’s faith and doctrine.”

California Supreme Court grants review

On Feb. 11, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the Lorenzo ruling. The question the California Supreme Court agreed to hear was: “Does the ministerial exception arising under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution categorically preclude wage and hour claims by a minister against a religious organization without any inquiry into whether the claim touches upon any ecclesiastical concern?”

In other words, is a religious employer excused from wage claims brought by its minister-employees simply because it is a religious employer or, instead, are such claims only limited to the extent the religious employer can demonstrate in a particular case that the minister’s claims implicate the entity’s internal government closely linked to religious doctrine?

On March 1, a three-justice panel of Division Two of the First District Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion on the scope of the ministerial exception as their Division Five colleagues on what the court called “strikingly similar” facts. In Ehrenkranz v. San Francisco Zen Center, as in Lorenzo, the court of appeal reversed summary judgment in the Zen Center’s favor.

Also as in Lorenzo, the Ehrenkranz court did not foreclose the center from presenting evidence at trial that applying wage-and-hour laws to the plaintiff-minister would indeed risk interference with church governance over religious matters and therefore should be barred.

While the California Supreme Court considers this important issue, of broader and more immediate concern to San Diego employers and employees are the rules that apply to sweltering workplaces.

Reminder of employee heat protections

The extreme heat Southern California has experienced in recent weeks prompted Cal/OSHA to remind employers of their obligation to take steps to protect indoor and outdoor employees from heat-related injury and illness.

Cal/OSHA’s advisory reminds employers that Cal/OSHA heat regulations:

May require employers to implement protective measures for both outdoor and indoor workers, depending on the heat exposure to which workers are subjected.
Require employers with indoor workplaces, such as restaurants and warehouses, where the temperature reaches 82 degrees to take such protective steps as providing water, rest, cool-down areas and training.
Require employers to provide outdoor workers with “fresh water, access to shade (which must be in place when temperatures are 80 degrees or higher) and, whenever requested by a worker, cool-down rest breaks in addition to regular breaks.”
Impose special high-heat requirements on such industries as agricultural production and transportation, construction and landscaping. In those industries, high-heat procedures “include ensuring employees are observed regularly for signs of heat illness and establishing effective communication methods.”
Require employers in indoor and outdoor settings also to “maintain a written prevention plan with effective training for supervisors to recognize the common signs and symptoms of heat illness, and what to do in case of an emergency.”

Failure to follow these rules may subject an employer to thousands of dollars in fines, depending on the number and severity of the violations and the risk of injury or illness to which employees thereby are exposed. Employers, therefore, should take heat advisories seriously.

Eaton is a partner with the San Diego law firm of Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek where his practice focuses on defending and advising employers. He also is an instructor at the San Diego State University Fowler College of Business where he teaches classes in business ethics and employment law. He may be reached at eaton@scmv.com.