CHURCH AT 295 S. 18TH v. Employment Dept.
Decision Date | 05 July 2001 |
Citation | 28 P.3d 1185,175 Or. App. 114 |
Parties | CHURCH AT 295 S. 18TH ST., ST. HELENS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Dean Lederer, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief were Daniel A. Hill and Adams, Day & Hill.
Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and LINDER and BREWER, Judges.
Petitioner, the Church at 295 S. 18th St., St. Helens (church), seeks judicial review of a final order of an Employment Department hearing officer holding that the church is an employer within the meaning of ORS 657.025 and is therefore liable for unemployment taxes. We affirm.
The hearing officer found the following facts. The church holds worship services on Sunday mornings and evenings and religious instruction classes on Wednesday evenings. Since 1996, Hubert Barton, who employs the title "evangelist," has led the Sunday worship services. That work includes teaching a class and delivering a sermon each Sunday morning and generally participating in the Sunday evening services. He also has provided teaching at the Wednesday meetings. Barton spends most of his time working at the church, but he does spend some time away. Occasionally, he has visited other churches in California and has spent time at a bible camp.
Barton does not maintain an office at the church. He operates from his home, using a table in his kitchen as an office. He uses a computer that he purchased with his own money. He has business cards that display his name and personal phone number.
The church collects from its members a tithe and then disburses the tithes—on average, approximately $1,000 per month—to Barton. It uses other collections for other church expenses. At least 80 percent of Barton's annual income comes from those tithes. He receives some additional income from his visits to other churches and from weddings and funerals.
The church considers Barton to be its evangelist, not its employee. It would end its association with Barton if he did not follow biblical doctrine or standards, however. The Employment Department (department) learned that Barton regularly received tithes in exchange for his services as evangelist for the church. It requested regular reports from the church as an employer. The church refused to provide any information to the department. Over the church's objections, the department prepared and submitted an employment tax registration for the church and estimated its tax responsibility. The church refused to pay and requested a hearing.
At the hearing, the church argued that: (1) it does not employ Barton; (2) if it does employ Barton, he is an independent contractor for whom no tax payments are required; and (3) requiring it to acknowledge that it is an "employer" violates its constitutional rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. The hearing officer concluded, on the foregoing findings of fact, that the church is Barton's employer, because it paid him for services that he provided. The hearing officer further concluded that Barton is not an independent contractor, because he failed to meet five of the eight requirements of the statutory exemption for independent contractors. Finally, the hearing officer held that requiring the church to acknowledge that it is an employer interferes with neither its right of free speech nor its right of free exercise.
On review, the church first argues that the hearing officer erred in concluding that it employs Barton. According to the church, the evidence shows that it has no governing body, exercised "very little control" over Barton's work, and paid him only tithes, not a wage or salary. The department argues that that evidence is beside the point, because the undisputed facts are that the church paid Barton to perform services for it. We agree with the department.
An "employer" must pay into the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund. ORS 657.505. An "employer" is defined, if somewhat tautologically, as:
"[A]ny employing unit which employs one or more individuals in an employment subject to this chapter in each of 18 separate weeks during any calendar year, or in which its total payroll during any calendar quarter amounts to $225 or more."
ORS 657.025(1). An "employee" is defined as:
"[A]ny person * * * employed for remuneration or under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied, by an employer subject to this chapter * * *."
ORS 657.015. Finally, "employment" is "service for an employer * * * performed for remuneration or under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied." ORS 657.030(1).
The individual or entity challenging the applicability of the tax bears the burden of proving that it is not an employer within the meaning of ORS 657.025(1). Ponderosa Inn, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 63 Or.App. 183, 186, 663 P.2d 1291 (1983).
In light of the foregoing definitions, it is clear that the evidence on which the church relies simply is irrelevant. Whether the church has a governing body, pays out of the congregational tithes, or controls Barton's work is beside the point. All that matters for purposes of determining whether the church is an employer within the meaning of the statutes is whether it pays Barton for services that he renders under a contract of hire. The hearing officer concluded that it does, based on findings that it pays him approximately $1,000 per month for performing services as an evangelist. The church does not contest those findings. There is, therefore, no basis for concluding that the hearing officer erred.
The church next argues that, if the hearing officer did not err in concluding that it is an employer, he did err in concluding that it was not subject to the statutory exemption for employers of independent contractors. The church acknowledges that it did not meet each of the eight requirements for the statutory exemption. It argues that several of the factors simply do not apply to churches. In the alternative, it argues that the hearing officer's findings as to those factors are not supported by substantial evidence. The department argues that, as a matter of law, all eight requirements must be met and that, because the church could not satisfy all eight, the hearing officer did not err in concluding that the exemption did not apply. We agree with the department.
ORS 657.040(1)(a) provides, in part:
ORS 670.600, in turn, provides that a person must satisfy the following conditions to be considered an independent contractor:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus.
...we address the Kleins' federal constitutional arguments first and their state arguments second. See Church at 295 S. 18th St. v. Employment Dept. , 175 Or. App. 114, 123 n. 2, 28 P.3d 1185, rev. den. , 333 Or. 73, 36 P.3d 974 (2001) (noting that "[t]he Supreme Court likewise does not always......
-
Green v. Miss U.S., LLC
...that is protected under the First Amendment"). Nor was this a one-off occurrence. See, e.g. , Church at 295 S. 18th St., St. Helens v. Emp. Dep't , 175 Or.App. 114, 28 P.3d 1185, 1190 (2001) ; Klein v. Or. Bureau of Lab. & Indus. , 289 Or.App. 507, 410 P.3d 1051, 1064 (2017), cert. granted,......
-
Freedom Socialist Party v. Bradbury
...claim because he has failed to brief or argue any independent state constitutional theory."); Church at 295 S. 18th St. v. Employment Dept., 175 Or.App. 114, 123 n. 2, 28 P.3d 1185, rev. den. 333 Or. 73, 36 P.3d 974 (2001) (addressing only federal constitutional arguments because state cons......
-
State, Department of Human Services v. Priest Lake Community Baptist Church, No. M2006-00302-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 6/25/2007)
...specifically addressed and rejected this type of argument. In Church at 295 S. 18th Street, St. Helens v. Employment Dept., 175 Or. App. 114, 125-26, 28 P.3d 1185, 1191-92 (Or. Ct. App. 2001), a church claimed that because an unemployment taxation law provided a list of exemptions, the stat......