Stuart-James Co., Inc. v. Tanner, STUART-JAMES
| Decision Date | 22 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 46418,STUART-JAMES,46418 |
| Citation | 259 Ga. 289,380 S.E.2d 257 |
| Parties | TheCO., INC. v. TANNER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Donald T. Trinen, Christa D. Taylor, Hart & Trinen, Denver, Colo., Rufus T. Dorsey IV, Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, Atlanta, Ga., for the Stuart-James Co., Inc.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Wayne P. Yancey, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Annette Cowart, William F. Amideo, Asst. Attys. Gen., for Joe D. Tanner, Com'r, et al.
We granted The Stuart-James Company, Inc.'s application to appeal the ruling of the superior court affirming the decision of the Department of Labor that it is not exempt from unemployment taxes under the provisions of the Georgia Employment Security Law. OCGA Ch. 34-8.
Stuart-James is an investment banking and stock brokerage company, whose salespersons are essentially independent contractors who are compensated, not by salary but by a share of the commission earned by Stuart-James on the sale of securities. 1
When the Department of Labor attempted to assess unemployment taxes against it, Stuart-James sought to establish an exemption under OCGA § 34-8-40(g) of the act, which exempts from unemployment tax services performed by an individual for wages which meet the so-called "A, B, C" test. This test refers to the three conditions of employment which must be met in order to qualify for the exemption under this code section. See Sarah Coventry, Inc. v. Caldwell, 243 Ga. 429, 254 S.E.2d 375 (1979). After a hearing, the Department of Labor hearing officer found Stuart-James did not qualify for this exemption, is an "employer" under the act, and is liable for contributions to the Georgia unemployment fund. Because employers of insurance agents and solicitors and real estate agents are specifically exempt from this tax, OCGA § 34-8-40(o)(11), 2 Stuart-James, on appeal to the superior court, challenged the constitutionality of the act on equal protection grounds. The Fulton Superior Court affirmed the hearing officer's denial of the exemption and held the act constitutional. Stuart-James appeals, challenging only the trial court's ruling that the act does not deny equal protection in exempting independent salespersons such as real estate agents and insurance agents and solicitors, while not exempting securities salespersons. For the reasons given below, we affirm.
The test for evaluating legislation under an equal protection claim such as that raised by Stuart-James has two prongs: it must be shown first, that the claimant is similarly situated to members of the class who are treated differently from it and second, that such different treatment has no rational basis. The burden of proof rests upon the claimant because the statute is presumptively valid.
"[T]he Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to states the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways." Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75 (92 S.Ct. 251, 153, 30 L.Ed.2d 225) (1971). An equal protection analysis, therefore, requires as a "preliminary step" a determination of "whether persons who are similarly situated are subject to disparate treatment." Johnson v. Smith, 696 F.2d 1334, 1336 (11th Cir.1983). [Emphasis supplied.] ...
Where groups are similarly situated "[t]he general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (105 SCt 3249, 3254, 87 LEd2d 313) (1985)....
Price v. Tanner, 855 F.2d 820, 822-23 (11th Cir.1988).
Tanner argues that Stuart-James failed to carry its burden with respect to the "preliminary step," proving that securities salespersons are in fact similarly situated to the real estate and insurance agents who are exempted from the act. 16, 16A Am.Jur.2d 709, 812, Constitutional Law §§ 749, 251, 749. At the hearing before the Department of Labor hearing officer, Stuart-James presented only one witness. He was an executive vice president...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regan v. State
... ... v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc. , 473 U.S. 432, 446-447 ... (105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 ... See Stegall v ... Leader Nat. Ins. Co. , 256 Ga. 765, 766 (5) (353 S.E.2d ... 484) (1987) ... Court precedent. See, e.g., Stuart-James Co. v ... Tanner , 259 Ga. 289, 290 (380 S.E.2d 257) ... ...
-
Zach, Inc. v. Fulton County, A98A2362.
...class who are treated differently from it and second, whether such different treatment has a rational basis. Stuart-James Co. v. Tanner, 259 Ga. 289, 290, 380 S.E.2d 257 (1989). Zach bore the burden of showing the statute was unconstitutional as applied. Id. Here, Zach failed to satisfy eit......
-
Henry v. State, S93A1045
...from him. Next, the claimant must establish that there is no rational basis for such different treatment. Stuart-James Co., Inc. v. Tanner, 259 Ga. 289, 290, 380 S.E.2d 257 (1989). The superior courts are expressly named in the constitution, and form a part of the judicial system for the wh......
-
Dobbins v. State
...from him. Next, the claimant must establish that there is no rational basis for such different treatment. Stuart-James Co., Inc. v. Tanner, 259 Ga. 289, 290, 380 S.E.2d 257 (1989). Here, appellant merely asserts that he is similarly situated to all other criminal and civil litigants and tha......