JB Construction, Inc. v. Job Service North Dakota
2017 ND 18
| N.D. | 2017Background
- JB Construction is an incorporated power-line company; in 2000 its three officers (Wesley, Harvey, Wayne Jahner) applied for and received an exemption under N.D.C.C. § 52-01-01(17)(a)(1) to exclude their wages from job insurance coverage effective Jan 1, 2000.
- In 2009 two officers transferred ownership/positions to their sons (Vance and Jesse Jahner); JB did not file a new exemption application for the new officers.
- A 2015 Job Service audit found no application on file for Vance and Jesse and determined their services constituted "employment" under the statute, so their wages were not exempt.
- An appeals referee affirmed Job Service’s determination; the Emmons County district court affirmed; JB appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
- JB argued the 2000 exemption attached to the corporate officer positions (president, vice-president, secretary/treasurer) and therefore continued to cover successor officers without new filings; Job Service argued exemptions apply to individual officers and new officers must apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52-01-01(17)(a)(1) allows a corporation to rely on a previously granted officer exemption for successor officers without a new application | The original 2000 exemption attaches to the corporate offices (positions) and thus covers successors without new filings | Exemptions apply to individual officers who must concur and, if a new person assumes the office, the corporation must file a new application for that individual | The statute is unambiguous: exemptions apply to the individual officer (not the position); new officers must file their own application; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Teigen v. State, 749 N.W.2d 505 (N.D. 2008) (standard for full review of statutory interpretation)
- Indus. Contractors, Inc. v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 772 N.W.2d 582 (N.D. 2009) (deference to agency construction where statute not clear)
- State v. Meador, 785 N.W.2d 886 (N.D. 2010) (statutory ambiguity defined as susceptible to different rational meanings)
- Rasnic v. ConocoPhillips Co., 854 N.W.2d 659 (N.D. 2014) (rules for statutory construction: plain meaning, harmonization, and use of extrinsic aids when ambiguous)