Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Headley Labor Case - Defendant's Memo in Opposition to Summary Adjudication

Headley Labor Case - Defendant's Memo in Opposition to Summary Adjudication

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 163 |Likes:
Published by Documents Archive
This is Defendant Church of Scientology International's Motion in Opposition to the Summary Adjudication Motion filed by Marc Headley. Headley's motion was asking to get a finding that he was a covered employee of the Church of Scientology and entitled to minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This opposition paper explains the legal reasons why a member of a religious order (the Sea Organization) is not considered an employee covered under the FLSA and how the activities in which Headley was engaged differs from those in the Alamo case, which is the main authority used by the Plaintiff to argue his case.
This is Defendant Church of Scientology International's Motion in Opposition to the Summary Adjudication Motion filed by Marc Headley. Headley's motion was asking to get a finding that he was a covered employee of the Church of Scientology and entitled to minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This opposition paper explains the legal reasons why a member of a religious order (the Sea Organization) is not considered an employee covered under the FLSA and how the activities in which Headley was engaged differs from those in the Alamo case, which is the main authority used by the Plaintiff to argue his case.

More info:

Published by: Documents Archive on Sep 30, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/20/2012

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
0047/21051-004Current/15661533v1
 
ANTHONY J. ONCIDI, SBN 118135aoncidi@proskauer.comHAROLD M. BRODY, SBN 84927hbrody@proskauer.comG. SAMUEL CLEAVER, SBN 245717gcleaver@proskauer.comPROSKAUER ROSE LLP2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206Telephone: (310) 557-2900Facsimile: (310) 557-2193KENDRICK L. MOXON, SBN 128240kmoxon@earthlink.netMOXON & KOBRIN3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900Los Angeles, California 90010Telephone: (213) 487-4468Facsimile: (213) 487-5385ERIC M. LIEBERMAN, admitted pro hac viceelieberman@rbskl.comRABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD,KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P.C.111 Broadway, 11th Floor  New York, NY 10006Telephone: (212) 254-1111Attorneys for Defendant,CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONALUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCE NTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMARC HEADLEY,Plaintiff,v.CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity,Defendant.))))))))))))))))Case No. CV09-3986 DSF (MANx)
DEFENDANT CHURCH OFSCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL’SMEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES INOPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR SUMMARYADJUDICATIONHon. Dale S. Fischer
Date: September 28, 2009Time: 1:30 p.m.
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN Document 40 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 1 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i
 
0047/21051-004Current/15661533v1
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageINTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1FACTS.........................................................................................................................2ARGUMENT...............................................................................................................7I. MINIMUM WAGE LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO CHURCHESTO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO NOT ENGAGE INORDINARY COMMERCIAL BUSINESS VENTURES INCOMPETITION IN THE COMMERCIAL MARKETPLACE............7A. The FLSA Does Not Apply..........................................................7B. The California Labor Code and Wage Orders Also Do NotApply..........................................................................................10C. Headley Misconstrues the Applicable Cases..............................12II. THE MINISTERIAL EXEMPTION PROHIBITSAPPLICATION OF MINIMUM WAGE LAWS TO NON-SECULAR CHURCH WORKERS OR MEMBERS OF ARELIGIOUS ORDER...........................................................................15III. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RELIGIOUS WORKERS AT CSIAND GOLDEN ERA, INCLUDING HEADLEY’S, CANNOTBE CONSIDERED PART OF A COMMERCIAL“ENTERPRISE”...................................................................................18IV. HEADLEY WAS A MEMBER OF A RELIGIOUS ORDER AND HIS DUTIES PLACED HIM WITHIN THEMINISTERIAL EXCEPTION..............................................................23CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................25
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN Document 40 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 2 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii
 
0047/21051-004Current/15661533v1
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
F
EDERAL
C
ASES
 
 Alcazar v. Catholic Archbishop of Seattle
,2006 WL 3791370 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 21, 2006)........................................16, 17
 Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth.,
 
297 U.S. 288 (1936)...........................................................................................11
 EEOC v. Catholic Univ. of Am.,
 
83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996).............................................................................17
 EEOC v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, NC,
 
213 F.3d 795 (4th Cir. 2000)..................................................................16, 17, 25
 EEOC v. Sw. Baptist Theological Seminary
,
 
651 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1981)........................................................................17, 18
 Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church,
 
375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2004)........................................................................14, 15
 Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church,
 
397 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2005)..............................................................................14
 Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc.
474 F.3d 223 (6th
 
Cir. 2007)..............................................................................16
McClure v. Salvation Army,
460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1972)............................................................15, 18, 19, 20
Murdock v. Pennsylvania,
319 U.S. 105 (1943)...............................................................................21, 22, 24
Murray v. The Charming Betsy,
6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804)...............................................................................11
 NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago,
440 U.S. 490 (1979)...........................................................................................11
 Rayburn v. Gen. Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
,
 
772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985)............................................................................17
 Ross v. Metro. Church of God 
,471 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2007)..............................................................16
Schleicher v. Salvation Army
,518 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2008) (Posner, J.).....................................................10, 16
Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Washington
,363 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2004)..................................................................16, 17, 18
Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor 
,471 U.S. 290 (1985)...............................................................................12, 14, 15
Case 2:09-cv-03986-DSF-MAN Document 40 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 3 of 30

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->