How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask socrateaser Your Own Question
socrateaser, Lawyer
Category: California Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 37692
Experience:  Retired (mostly)
Type Your California Employment Law Question Here...
socrateaser is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

An employee was hired by a non-profit firm. Upon interviewing,

This answer was rated:

An employee was hired by a non-profit firm. Upon interviewing, the employee was told that the company status was non-profit, but not a church. The company fired the employee, and now is trying to look a church so they don't have to pay unemployment. What are the duties of an employer to properly disclose what they are about? Are there laws that prohibit them changing their status to avoid their responsibilities as an employer?

Unemployment Ins. Code 634.5 provides, among other things, that the following organizations and persons are exempt from the unemployment insurance laws:

(a) In the employ of either of the following: (1) A church or convention or association of churches. (2) An organization which is operated primarily for religious purposes and which is operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.
(b) By a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his or her ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by the order.

The case of Young Life Campaign v. Patino (1981) 122 Cal. App. 3d 559 is the precedent decision in California which defines what is and what is not a religious organization under Unemp. Ins. Code 634.5. The case should be read in its entirety, because it carefully explains the "rules" concerning this issue, and basically comes done to accepting a very liberal view. Most organizations with religious underpinnings can avoid unemployment insurance contributions based upon the Patino case law.

That said, you raise a secondary issue: was the employee's lack of unemployment insurance benefits misrepresented to the employee, in a manner that would give the employee an actionable claim against the former employer. There is no direct case law on this issue in California, making the issue one of "first impression" for an appellate court.

Were I the judge, I would first look to whether or not the employee's payroll statements showed a deduction for unemployment insurance. And, I would want to know for how long the employee was employed with the employer. The reason is simply that it would be very difficult for an employee to claim that he/she was deceived by the employer concerning the payment of unemployment insurance benefits, when the payroll statements showed no contributions being made. And, the longer the employee's employment, the less credible, in my opinion, would be the employee's claim of being deceived by the employer.

Assuming that it could be shown that the employee was completely in the dark as to the truth of the unemployment issue, then there is certainly a contract law action for misrepresentation available -- which would give the employee damages equal to the unemployment insurance benefits to which he/she would otherwise be unentitled.

In sum, we have a question of (1) whether or not the organization is really a religious organization or church; and (2) whether or not the organization misrepresented its status in a manner that would give the employee a claim of fraud or negligent misrepresentation. Either theory could provide a win for the employee. However, in each circumstance, this is a case for a court, or at least for an unemployment hearings officer. If I were the employee, I would file the unemployment claim and try to convince the hearings officer that the organization is not really a church or religious organization.

Hope this helps.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Thank you. Yes, it is front California's EDD right now. The first judge ruled for the employee. It got appealed, and the new judge is wading through all of the information. I believe the original judge did site the case you mention above. I will look that up and read it thoroughly. You brought up another good issue - which is misrepresentation under contract law. Believe it or not, the employee is a CPA/auditor. When she recognized that the company was NOT paying unemployment insurance, and she also recognized that they were not performing church functions, nor had church status, she did bring it up to the board. The president decided to reject her concern. She was fired shortly thereafter.

It's certainly a big problem for the employer, if it goes before the Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Board (CUIAB), because a precedent decision could end the employer's exempt status, retroactive for up to three years for all employees. Consequently, this is the sort of case that the employer may not be able to surrender. Most employers may start an argument against an employee, to try to avoid an increase in UI contributions -- but, the employer quickly abandons the case, because it's more expensive to fight than to pay.

Here, however, it's all or nothing. This is bad for the employee, because the employer may spend a lot of money litigating this matter so as to avoid an adverse ruling -- which of course, means that the employee may also have to expend legal fees if the matter ends up in Superior Court.

Hope this helps.
socrateaser, Lawyer
Satisfied Customers: 37692
Experience: Retired (mostly)
socrateaser and other California Employment Law Specialists are ready to help you

JustAnswer in the News:

Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.

What Customers are Saying:

  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
< Previous | Next >
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK

Meet The Experts:

  • LawTalk



    Satisfied Customers:

    I have 30 years of experience in the practice of law, including employment law and discrimination law.
< Last | Next >
  • LawTalk's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    I have 30 years of experience in the practice of law, including employment law and discrimination law.
  • Tina's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    JD, 17 years experience & recognized by ABA for excellence in employment law.
  • Brandon, Esq.'s Avatar

    Brandon, Esq.


    Satisfied Customers:

    Has received a certificate of recognition from the California State Senate for his outstanding legal service.
  • melissamesq's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    Represent clients to maximum recovery in employment cases.
  • /img/opt/shirt.png Attorney2020's Avatar



    Satisfied Customers:

    I have significant experience in employment law.
  • /img/opt/shirt.png Legal Counsel's Avatar

    Legal Counsel


    Satisfied Customers:

    California Licensed Attorney- 29 years- Wages, Hours, Overtime, Discrimination, Wrongful Termination.

Related California Employment Law Questions