Plaintiff Michael Ehrenkranz filed claims with the Labor Commissioner against San Francisco Zen Center (Center), Linda Galijan, and Mike Smith (when referred to collectively, defendants) for wage-and-hour violations. The Labor Commissioner ruled in favor of Ehrenkranz, and defendants appealed the decision, resulting in a de novo action in the trial court.
Ehrenkranz moved to dismiss the appeals of Galijan and Smith on the ground they failed to post an undertaking as required by Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (b). The trial court denied that motion. Defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ehrenkranz’s claims were barred by the ministerial exception of the First Amendment, an affirmative defense. The court granted that motion and entered judgment for defendants.
Ehrenkranz appeals that judgment, asserting two main arguments , that the trial court erred (1) in granting summary judgment because there is no evidence that his wage claims raised an ecclesiastical concern and thus that his claims violated the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, and (2) in denying his motion to dismiss the appeals of Galijan and Smith because its finding that they satisfied the undertaking requirement in section 98.2 was based on a misinterpretation of the statute.
Months ago, our colleagues in Division Five filed an opinion involving facts strikingly similar to those present here, in an appeal arising in the same setting as here, which raised the identical issues presented here, and involved the same arguments Ehrenkranz makes here. That case is Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center et al. (Nov. 21, 2025, A171659) 116 Cal.App.5th 258, review granted February 11, 2026, S294565 (Lorenzo), and in it Division Five ruled for Lorenzo all the way. Thereafter, our Supreme Court granted review of the ministerial exception issue. Pending guidance from the Supreme Court, we agree with the reasoning of Lorenzo as to the Religion Clauses analysis and adopt the same conclusions here, and thus hold that the trial court erred in finding that the ministerial exception barred Ehrenkranz’s wage-and-hour claims because defendants presented no evidence that his claims raised an ecclesiastical concern. We therefore reverse the summary judgment.
But we part company with our colleagues on the second issue and conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Ehrenkranz’s motion to dismiss the appeals of Galijan and Smith.
There are 0 comments