Samano v. Temple of Kriya
2020 IL App (1st) 190699
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Mary Samano (plaintiff) worked for The Temple of Kriya from 1999 to 2012 as a swami/discip le and performed marketing, website maintenance, livestreaming and supervisory tasks; she alleges she worked ~60–80 hours/week but was paid for ~2½ days (21.66 hrs) weekly and hourly marketing work.
- In December 2014 Samano sued under Illinois Minimum Wage Law (overtime), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (Wage Payment Act) (failure to pay wages), and for retaliatory discharge under the Wage Payment Act after complaining about pay/tax classification.
- Bench trial (Apr 2017): trial court found plaintiff was an employee (not a religious-member exemption or volunteer), awarded $75,000 compensatory damages, and later awarded $35,000 in attorney fees and $457 costs.
- Defendant appealed the judgment and fee award; Samano cross-appealed the fee amount.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court: held the Minimum Wage Law did not apply because Samano was a member of a religious organization (ministerial exemption), and the Wage Payment Act claims failed because there was no mutual assent to pay her for more than 2½ days/week; attorney fees reversed as consequential.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Samano is an “employee” under Illinois Minimum Wage Law or excluded as a member of a religious organization/ministerial exception | Samano argued her paid technical work (marketing, web, livestream) made her a covered employee not excluded by the religious-member rule | Temple argued Samano was a swami/ministerial member whose duties (including communications) fall within the religious-member exemption/ministerial exception | Reversed trial court: Samano is excluded as a member of a religious organization — ministerial/religious-member exemption applies (Majority). |
| Whether Samano’s extra hours were volunteer or rendered her exempt/nonemployee | Samano maintained she was paid and expected compensation and therefore not a volunteer for the extra hours | Temple argued extra work was volunteer/in the nature of religious service and therefore not covered | Court did not need to resolve after ministerial ruling; (trial court had rejected volunteer argument). |
| Whether an agreement existed under the Wage Payment Act to pay Samano for >2½ days/week (wages owed/retaliation claim dependent on wages owed) | Samano asserted longstanding practice and work performed showed an agreement to compensate for additional hours | Temple argued no mutual assent: pay arrangement limited to 2½ days/week and plaintiff accepted continued work after partial raise without securing pay for extra days | Reversed trial court on Wage Payment Act counts: no evidence of mutual assent to pay for more than 2½ days/week, so no wages owed and retaliation claim fails. |
| Attorney fees award under Wage Payment Act | Samano sought higher fees; trial court awarded $35,000 | Temple argued fee award should be limited to contingent-fee amount or reduced | Fee award vacated as judgment on all counts reversed; appellate court declined to decide cross-appeal on fee amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 565 U.S. 171 (2012) (Supreme Court framing of ministerial exception and factors to assess ministerial status)
- Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020) (Supreme Court further discussion of ministerial exception factors)
- Schleicher v. Salvation Army, 518 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2008) (Seventh Circuit applying ministerial/minister exception in wage-hour context)
- Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2003) (communications/clerical role regarded as ministerial when conveying church message)
- Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Washington, Inc., 363 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2004) (discussing primary-duties test for ministerial exception)
- Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985) (Supreme Court warning about coercion and unpaid volunteer/time claims under wage statutes)
- Landers-Scelfo v. Corporate Office Systems, Inc., 356 Ill. App. 3d 1060 (2005) (Illinois law: Wage Payment Act does not require a formal contract; agreement can be shown by conduct/past practice)
- Geary v. Telular Corp., 341 Ill. App. 3d 694 (2003) (continuing to work after a change in pay can indicate acceptance of new compensation terms)
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (2002) (standard for reversing bench-trial factual findings: manifest weight of the evidence)