STATE, INDUSTRIAL COM'N v. Bible Missionary Church, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 28317.,28317. |
| Citation | 70 P.3d 685,138 Idaho 847 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, ex rel., INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BIBLE MISSIONARY CHURCH, INC., of Kuna, Idaho, an Idaho non-profit corporation; Larry Roberts, Treasurer; and Barbara Roberts, Secretary, in their official capacities, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General for appellant. Blair D. Jaynes argued.
Robert L. Aldridge, Boise, and Richard S. Owen, Nampa, for respondents.
The Industrial Commission (Commission) sought injunctive relief and imposition of a civil penalty against the Bible Missionary Church (Church) because the Church failed to obtain worker's compensation insurance for its pastor. The magistrate court granted summary judgment in favor of the Church on the grounds that the Church did not operate for pecuniary gain and was, therefore, exempt from the worker's compensation statutes. The Commission appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate's decision. The Commission now appeals to this Court.
The decision of the magistrate is affirmed.
The facts in the record underlying this matter are undisputed. The Church "employed Jack E. Howard [ (pastor) ] as Pastor from December 1997, to the present date." Howard was an employee of the Church and the Church "did not have worker's compensation insurance in effect from March 31, 1998 through July 1, 1999."
The Church is funded solely by donations from those who attend its worship services. The Church does not receive funds from any other source, such as letting space for weddings or other activities, running a daycare, or rummage sales. While the Church does have guidelines regarding tithing, donations are entirely voluntary.
On September 13, 1999, the Commission filed a suit against the Church in magistrate court seeking a $100.00 civil penalty against the Church for its failure to carry worker's compensation insurance and requesting an order enjoining the Church from further operations with employees until it cured its default under Idaho worker's compensation law. The Church asserted that it was exempt from the requirements of the law on the ground that its activities were not conducted for the sake of pecuniary gain.
The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The magistrate heard oral argument on December 15, 2000. On March 5, 2001, the magistrate entered a memorandum decision and order granting summary judgment to the Church. The magistrate found that the Church was exempt from the requirements of Idaho worker's compensation law pursuant to I.C. § 72-212(6) because the services rendered by the Church were not for the sake of pecuniary gain. The Commission appealed the magistrate's decision to the district court. On January 25, 2002, the district court entered its decision and order affirming the magistrate's decision.
The Commission timely appealed to this Court.
"When reviewing a decision of a magistrate following an intermediate appeal, this Court independently examines the proceedings in the magistrate division and gives `due consideration, but not deference, to the [intermediate] court's appellate decision.' " State v. Suiter, 138 Idaho 13, 15, 56 P.3d 775, 777 (2002) (quoting State v. Hammersley, 134 Idaho 816, 818, 10 P.3d 1285, 1287 (2000)).
This Court reviews summary judgment using the same standard as the court that originally ruled on the motion. Mastrangelo v. Sandstrom, 137 Idaho 844, 846, 55 P.3d 298, 300 (2002) (citing Kelso v. Lance, 134 Idaho 373, 374-75, 3 P.3d 51, 52-53 (2000)). This Court affirms an order granting summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c). As to issues of law, this Court exercises free review over the district court's decision. Mastrangelo, 137 Idaho at 846, 55 P.3d at 300 (citing Bouten Constr. Co. v. H.F. Magnuson Co., 133 Idaho 756, 760, 992 P.2d 751, 755 (1999)).
The Commission argues that whether one qualifies for the "not for the sake of pecuniary gain" exemption to worker's compensation requirements under I.C. § 72-212(6) depends on whether an employer receives remuneration for services it offers. According to the Commission, the donations received by the Church constitute remuneration for its services; therefore, the Church operates for pecuniary gain and is subject to Idaho worker's compensation law. The Church, on the other hand, argues that it does not offer services for which it expects or requires remuneration and its services are not offered with a business purpose. Thus, the Church contends that it does not operate for the sake of pecuniary gain and is either not engaged in "employment" pursuant to I.C. § 72-204(4) or is exempt from the requirements of worker's compensation law pursuant to I.C. § 72-212(6).
Section 72-203, Idaho Code, states that Idaho worker's compensation law applies "to all private employment...." An employer is one who "has expressly or impliedly hired or contracted the services of another." I.C. § 72-102(12)(a). When engaged in private employment, an employer must secure or insure its potential liability for worker's compensation claims. See I.C. § 72-301. See also I.C. §§ 72-210 and -319. Employment includes "[a] person performing services in the course of the trade, profession or occupation of an employer," but "only in a trade or occupation which is carried on by the employer for the sake of pecuniary gain...." I.C. §§ 72-204(1) and (4). Section 72-212(6) states that worker's compensation law does not apply to "[e]mployment which is not carried on by the employer for the sake of pecuniary gain."
The undisputed facts show that the Church was an "employer" of the pastor, and the pastor performed "services in the course of the trade, profession or occupation of" the Church. See I.C. § 72-204(1),(4) and — 102(12)(a). This Court must, however, determine whether the Church engaged in its business "for the sake of pecuniary gain." I.C. §§ 72-204(4) and -212(6). If the Church employed Howard for "the sake of pecuniary gain," it was engaged in "private employment" requiring it to carry worker's compensation insurance pursuant to section 72-301. See I.C. §§ 72-204(4) and -212(6).
An employer engages in an occupation or profession "for the sake of pecuniary gain," for purposes of §§ 72-204(4) and -212(6), if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regan v. Owen
...summary judgment using the same standard as the court that originally ruled on the motion." State ex rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Bible Missionary Church, Inc., 138 Idaho 847, 849, 70 P.3d 685, 687 (2003). "[S]ummary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, togethe......
-
Regan v. Owen
...summary judgment using the same standard as the court that originally ruled on the motion." State ex rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Bible Missionary Church, Inc. , 138 Idaho 847, 849, 70 P.3d 685, 687 (2003). "[S]ummary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, togeth......