Martinez v. Industrial Commission of Colorado
| Decision Date | 11 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80CA0082,80CA0082 |
| Citation | 618 P.2d 738 |
| Parties | Tomas MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF COLORADO (Ex-Officio Unemployment Compensation Commission of Colorado) and C.F. & I. Steel Corporation and the Division of Employment of the Department of Labor and Employment of Colorado, Respondents. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Charles E. Johnson, Montie L. Barringer, Pueblo, for petitioner.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Abby L. Pozefsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado (Ex-Officio Unemployment Commission of the State of Colorado).
Petitioner, Tomas Martinez, seeks review of an order of the Industrial Commission denying him unemployment compensation benefits for a period of twelve weeks following his termination at Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation. While we disagree with the reasoning followed by the Commission, we nevertheless affirm its order.
Petitioner, an American Indian, was employed as an ingot crane operator at CF& I in Pueblo from May 1970 until January 1979. During this time, he became interested in his ethnic and religious heritage and embarked upon a search for a religion which would satisfy his spiritual needs. In the course of his studies, he discovered an Indian god named "Wakan-Tanka," or Great Mystery, who is worshipped by numerous American Indians. At the time petitioner accepted employment with CF&I, he was not a follower of Wakan-Tanka.
According to petitioner, the essence of his new-found religion is that the earth is the Mother of all Mankind and that it is a sin to dig in or be party to the destruction of the earth in any way. CF&I manufactures steel, and it owns and operates mines which supply ore and coal for the production of coke. Consequently, although his job did not bring him into direct contact with CF& I's mining operations, petitioner felt he could no longer condone the activities of CF&I or accept wages derived, at least indirectly, from profits realized by CF&I in its mining operations. He, therefore, terminated his employment and sought unemployment compensation benefits.
At the hearing before the referee, petitioner testified that he quit his job wholly because of its incompatibility with his religious convictions; CF&I did not alter the circumstances or conditions of petitioner's employment or bring any pressure to bear on him in any other way. Petitioner was granted a reduced award under 8-73-108(5)(u), C.R.S.1973 (1979 Cum.Supp.), which is applicable where an employee quits for personal reasons.
The Commission based its decision on findings that petitioner failed to prove that his beliefs were part of an established religion or to show how the tenets of his religion precluded his working for CF&I. The Commission concluded that petitioner's beliefs were "more a statement of religious philosophy, rather than the expression of the tenets of an organized religion."
Petitioner's sole contention on appeal is that the reduction of benefits violates his rights under the First Amendment because he was compelled to quit his job for religious reasons.
We note at the outset that the First Amendment is not so limited in scope as to protect only those beliefs which are tenets of an established religion. So long as a person's beliefs are "sincere and meaningful," U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965), they fall within the ambit of First Amendment protection; "they need not be confined in either source or content to traditional or parochial concepts of religion." Welsh v. U.S.., 398 U.S. 333, 339, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 1796, 26 L.Ed.2d 308, 318 (1970). Moreover petitioner is aided by the rule that all doubts as to the religious sufficiency of his beliefs must be resolved in his favor, United States v. White, 421 F.2d 487 (5th Cir. 1969), and his claim "that his belief is an essential part of a religious faith must be given great weight." U.S. v. Seeger, supra.
Nor does the Commission's conclusion that petitioner's beliefs were part of a "religious philosophy" deprive them of constitutional protection. In Seeger, the respondent described his beliefs as a Seeger, supra. Respondent claimed no allegiance to any particular religion. In spite of the clearly philosophical nature of his beliefs, the Court held that they were "religious" so as to entitle him to conscientious objector status, and that it was not the function of the Court to attempt to distinguish between "externally and internally derived beliefs."
Considering the principles enunciated above, we conclude that petitioner satisfied his burden of showing that his beliefs qualified for First Amendment protection. Further, the basis upon which these beliefs preclude him from working for CF&I is uncontradicted.
However, notwithstanding our conclusion that petitioner's beliefs fall within the ambit of the First Amendment, we hold that the denial of unemployment compensation benefits under the facts presented here does not violate his rights under that amendment.
We recognize that a proper respect for the free exercise clause requires the state to pursue a course of neutrality toward religion, Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973), and that a statute which is neutral on its face, may in its application, offend the constitutional requirement of government neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). But here, the state does not, through the operation of the Unemployment Compensation Act, seek to regulate petitioner's religious beliefs or to penalize him for ascribing to certain beliefs. The purpose of the act is strictly to provide financial relief during periods of involuntary unemployment, Anderson v. Industrial Commission, 167 Colo. 281, 447 P.2d 221 (1969), and it in no way conditions the right to receive benefits upon the holding of certain religious beliefs. However, petitioner contends that the Commission's application of the act burdens the free exercise of his religion in violation of the rule announced in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial