Employment Division v. Rogue Valley Youth for Christ

743 P.2d 745, 87 Or. App. 573
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedOctober 7, 1987
Docket85-T-191; CA A41242
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 743 P.2d 745 (Employment Division v. Rogue Valley Youth for Christ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Employment Division v. Rogue Valley Youth for Christ, 743 P.2d 745, 87 Or. App. 573 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

WARDEN, P. J.

Employment Division (Division) assessed unemployment compensation taxes against Rogue Valley Youth for Christ (YFC) as an “employer” subject to ORS ch 657. YFC requested a hearing. The referee found that YFC is a “church” within the meaning of ORS 657.072(1) (a) and therefore exempt from the taxes. Division seeks review, and we affirm.

Division contends that all religious organizations, including churches, are subject to the tax, because ORS 657.072(1)(a) unconstitutionally distinguishes between religious organizations that are churches and similar organizations that are not churches.1 ORS 657.072(1)(a) provides, in pertinent part:

“(1) ‘Employment’ does not include service performed:
“(a) In the employ of:
“(A) A church or convention or association of churches;
“(B) 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 churchesf.]”

Division relies on Salem College & Academy, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 298 Or 471, 695 P2d 25 (1985). In that case, an interdenominational religious school challenged Division’s assessment of unemployment compensation taxes against it, contending that it was exempt under ORS 657.072(1)(a) or, if not exempt, that application of the statute to it violated constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. In addressing the school’s first contention, the court stated:

“The present case would avoid constitutional difficulties if [the school] qualified for exemption as a church or as ‘principally supported’ by one or more churches. If ORS 657.072(1) (a) could be so interpreted and applied, it should be. Statutes should be interpreted and administered to be consistent with constitutional standards before attributing a policy of doubtful constitutionality to the political policymakers, [576]*576unless their expressed intentions leave no room for doubt.” 298 Or at 481. (Citations omitted.)

Because the school did not qualify for exemption under the statute, the court then addressed whether ORS 657.072(1) (a) could be applied constitutionally to deny the school an exemption.2

In this case, however, Division does not challenge the referee’s factual determination that YFC is a “church” within the meaning of ORS 657.072(l)(a). The granting of an exemption on that basis thus “avoid[s] constitutional difficulties.” Salem College & Academy, Inc. v. Emp. Div., supra, 298 Or at 481. Significantly, Division does not contend that ORS 657.072(1)(a) is unconstitutional as applied to YFC, a “church.” Instead, it asserts that the legislature may not constitutionally deny an exemption to a religious organization that is not a “church” and at the same time grant an exemption to a religious organization that is a “church.” That issue, however, is not factually presented by this case, because no party here has been denied an exemption on the basis that it is a religious organization that is not a “church.” Without such an actual controversy, Division cannot raise the issue and thereby seek a purely advisory opinion concerning the constitutionality of the statute. See Oregon Medical Association v. Rawls, 281 Or 293, 297 n 4, 574 P2d 1103 (1978). It follows that, because Division cannot raise the issue it seeks to raise in the context of this case and because it does not challenge the referee’s finding that YFC is a “church” under ORS 657.072(1) (a), we affirm the referee’s order.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Employment Division v. Rogue Valley Youth for Christ
770 P.2d 588 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
743 P.2d 745, 87 Or. App. 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/employment-division-v-rogue-valley-youth-for-christ-orctapp-1987.