South Ridge Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

dismissеd, 402(e) must be since 29 U.S.C. § specifically provides politi- state or CHURCH, SOUTH RIDGE BAPTIST cal subdivision thereof is excluded from the Plaintiff-Appellant, “employer” definition of as that term is

used in section 411. Title 29 U.S.C. §§ OHIO, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 152 also political exclude states or subdivi- al., Defendants-Appellees. et sions from the definition “employer” Management that term is used in the Labor No. 88-3091. (LMRA). Relations Act 29 U.S.C. 141 et § United States Appeals, Court of seq., including LMRA 29 U.S.C. § Sixth Circuit. 185. Therefore the “section 301” action § Argued must be dismissed. See Moir v. Nov. 1988. Greater Regional Cleveland Authority, Transit Aug. Decided (6th Cir.1990). However, 895 F.2d subject Local 129 nevertheless be injunction mandating order of the en-

forcement of the terms and conditions of bargaining agreement collective in ef- prior

fect relinquishing its action

appellants’ seniority vested and recall

rights by approving the December

furlough-recall agreement city. with the

Finally, validity remaining pen- claims,

dent state which include state law alleged

remedies for the union’s denial of

appellant’s rights repre- to vote and unfair

sentation, any, resulting from Local 129’s

agreement furlough-recall agree-

ment should be resolved the district upon

court remand. reasons,

For the above-stated the district judgment

court’s is REVERSED and RE-

MANDED appellants’ insofar as the four-

teenth amendment cause of action is con-

cerned, judgment the district court’s resolv-

ing appellants’ pursuant causes of action

section 301 of the LMRA and 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(1)is VACATED and REMANDED

with instructions that those causes of ac- DISMISSED, any remaining

pendent state law causes action are to court,

be resolved within its

discretion, on remand. re- which insurance scheme

ordinary public employers to liability of law places common benefits by insurance employees injured fund The fund. a state-administered administering it are in costs the state’s and year- twice payable premiums, financed accord- assessed and employer by each ly and the employees itsof to the number employment. relevant of the risk accident Partic- 4123.35(A), 4123.54. 4123.01, §§ mandatory for all is program in ipation the person one of at least 4123.35(A), with 4123.01(B), but state, §§ First, “em- here. exceptions relevant two ministers not to include is defined ployees” Second, 4123.01(A)(2)(a). of churches. § and to self-insure may elect employer employ- injured directly to its pay benefits solvency crite- financial satisfy ees, if it can the Industri- approval secure ria and Admin. 4123.35(B);Ohio al Commission. § The workers’ 4121-9-03. Code § appel- is administered program Compensa- of Workers’ Bureau lees Ohio of Ohio. Commission Industrial Cleveland, (argued), Loomis Daniel J. Baptist Ridge Church South Appellant Ohio, plaintiff-appellant. corporation located religious non-profit Columbus, (argued), Wayman Merl H. on submitted Conneaut, affidavits Ohio. defendants-appellees. Ohio, for itself characterizes behalf, Church its fundamental, Bible-be- independent, “an BOGGS, WELLFORD Before preaching Bible-teaching and lieving, ENGEL,* Senior Judges, and Circuit absolutely which “strive[s] church” Judge. Circuit of the doctrines fundamental obedient Judge. ENGEL, ‍‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‍Circuit Senior live in operate and and seek[s] Bible Baptist doctrine historical question of wheth- with accordance presents This case Testament the New free exercise marks violates er a state amend- the first Foundational clauses church.... establishment that I, compelling a belief beliefs, as a hold ment, we Const.Amend. living public work- God very into Word pay premiums church to Bible is authority of its on behalf final supreme compensation ers’ that believes Aside from practice.” where employees, faith and ultimately We sinful. several employs payments minister, are the Church delicate, interesting and although Biblical that of several hold basis On the employees. answered effectively been partic- question that to this verses, believes Church We Supreme Court. by the negative workers’ state’s ipate in the summary judgment affirm com- аccordingly God’s violate program church, although on somewhat against the the Church the head Jesus is mand that below. reasoning than God’s, spent to be different its funds further Church purposes. Biblical program, Ohio’s duty to Scriptural it has believes seq., is the et 4123.01 Rev.Code §§ * October status on Engel senior J. assumed Albert Honorable people injured assist its have been interests because Ohio Rev.Code 4123.35 ill. qualified fallen employer allows a opt for self- insurance. The Church had pursued never April On Bureau notified option. The district court also held it payroll the Church that must submit a compensation the workers’ system’s premiums report and remit to the Bureau. recordkeeping reporting requirements refusing compliance After with the notice did not violate the establishment clause of lodging Bureau, objections with the by excessively first amendment entan- 27,1983 complaint May Church filed a on gling church granting and state. sum- the United States District Court for the mary judgment, the court likewise denied alleging Northern District of Ohio that the class certification. The appeal- Church has compensation statute violat- ed. 42 unconstitutionally ed U.S.C. 1983 infringing rights the Church’s under the I. free exercise and establishment clauses. (1) sought The Church a declaration that 56(c), Under moving party Fed.R.Civ.P. a statute, compensation the Ohio workers’ summary is entitled to judgment “if the similarly to the applied Church and situated pleadings, depositions, interrog- answers to churches,1 violates the free exercise and atories, file, and admissions on together analogous provi- clauses and establishment affidavits, any, with the show that there Constitution, thereby sions of the Ohio genuine is no any issue as to material fact mandating exemption the Church’s from moving party and that the is entitled to a program;2 corresponding in- judgment as a matter of law.”

junction against enforcement of the stat- plain 56(c) language of Rule man- [T]he ute. entry dates the summary judgment, properly adequate Venue was transferred to the after time discovery for motion, upon United States District against party Court the South- who fails to 1, July ern District of Ohio on showing On make a sufficient to establish July defendants filed a motion to the existence of an element essential to 12(b)(6). case, party’s dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. Con- and on par- which that sidering summary judg- ty this a motion proof will the burden of at bear trial. ment, granted situation, the district court defen- In such a there can be “no 28, fact,” genuine dants’ motion on December 1987. 676 issue as to material (S.D.Ohio 1987). F.Supp. 799 complete proof The court since a failure of concern- rejected the ing Church’s claim that the work- an essential element of the nonmov- compensation ing party’s necessarily ers’ statutes violated the case renders all rights, holding moving par- Church’s free exercise other facts immaterial. The compulsory participation judgment in the ty is “entitled to a as a matter promoted compelling nonmoving party state interests of of law” because compensating injured protect- showing workers and failed to make a sufficient оn an solvency of the state-wide essential element of her case with re- Further, system. spect the court held to which she has the burden of proof. that the scheme was the least granting restrictive standard “[T]h[e] [for achieving summary judgment] means available for those state mirrors stan- proposed comprises participation pro- 1. The class 110 churches in the workers’ religious organizations out of 7226 the State gram participate but choose to in the fund of Ohio. immunity and thus secure from common law 23-2-1(5), liability. See W.Va.Stat.Ann. 23- §§ exempted 2. The Church seeks to be from an (Michie 1989). 2-6 Aside from the obvious obligation pay premiums to the workers’ point authority speak that the Church has no apparently fund. The Church en- interests, employees’ on bеhalf of its it is imma- employees ineligi- visions that its would then be holding employees terial to our whether the fund, ble for benefits from the since the Church protected by would continue to fund. approval Virginia example cites with the West II.§ exempt infra mandatory where churches are 1206 accomplish is essential “that it say, Federal under directed verdict for a dard ” interest.” governmental overriding 50(a).... Procedure Civil Rule 1055-56 102 Inc. 455 U.S. Liberty Lobby, [477 v. Anderson cases); see also 2511, and other (citing 91 Thomas U.S. Appeals Com Unemployment v. (1986)]. Hobbie L.Ed.2d 136, 107 Florida, U.S. mission Catrett, Cory. v. Celotex v. (1987); Wisconsin 1046, L.Ed.2d 91 L.Ed.2d 322-23, 106 S.Ct. Yoder, 406 U.S. moving party bears the (1986). The Verner, 374 (1972); Sherbert L.Ed.2d a material proving absence

burden 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 398, 83 S.Ct. must fact, produced evidence issue made this state has (1963). Whether light favorable most be viewed of “the comparison on showing depends a Kress v. S.H. nonmoving Adickes party. altering its activ of government to the 1598, cost S.Ct. 144, 90 Co., 398 U.S. to contin practice religious the ity allow (1970); also see 1609, 142 1608, L.Ed.2d 26 the reli cost to the versus unimpeded ue F.2d Corp., 737 Carbide v. Union Adams government the imposed interest gious issue for Cir.1984). There is no (6th 1453 at 417. Schmucker, 815 F.2d activity.” fa evidence is there sufficient unless trial jury a party for nonmoving voring the does not case, the Bureau present the In Anderson party. that a verdict for return grounding sincerity of the contest 249, 106 Inc., at 477 U.S. Lobby, Liberty v. funds its are that belief Church’s is im Summary judgment at S.Ct. according used should be alone and God’s genuine factual are proper “there them wishes; commands that God to God’s only can be resolved properly that issues Church’s the to further the funds to use they may rea of fact because finder by a of some ministries; that to use and various par either favor of sonably be resolved premiums into mandatory pay funds to the at 2511. 106 S.Ct. at Id. ty.” fund in- workers’ the state Bureau like- sinful. be would stead II. appeal contest on does not wise gov a determining whether When that the mandato- conclusion sound court’s bur impermissibly regulation ernmental free the burdens ry participation free exer rights under the individual dens part, its For religion. of exercise amendment, three the first of cise clause that the concedes Church of magnitude weighed: the must factors compelling a program advances reli of exercise defendant's burden on and workers protecting interest state state cоmpelling a the existence of gion; of work- against costs dependents their burden; ex justifying the interest so held. court The district accidents. place the defen accommodation to which tent appeal re- complaint on sole The Church’s objectives. impede state’s dant that the is claim exercise its free garding (6th 413, 417 Schmucker, F.2d 815 v.U.S. summary by granting court erred lower Lee, 455 v. Cir.1987) (citing United States they had when to the defendants judgment 1054-57, 256-60, of law that matter as a prove failed cases). (1982), other L.Ed.2d employers, all mandatory participation reli petitioner’s fact that mere “The churches, restric- the least was including by governmen is burdened practice gious compelling inter- towards that means tive exemp an not mean that does рrogram tal est. must be accommodating practice his Lee, supra, the Su v. States In United an may justify inroad granted. The directly rele case decided preme Court it is showing that liberty by on one, an extensive present to the a vant achieving means restrictive least There, case warranted. review of interest," Thomas Re compelling state reli objected on employer who Amish an Employment Securi Board, Indiana view public insur receipt of grounds gious Division, 450 U.S. ty sup- taxes payment ance benefits (1981),that is L.Ed.2d Amish and others. self-employed Confin- being asserted benefits port of 1402(g) exemption to the self- security tax social pay the federal forced to category provided free for a narrow employed his employеes violated his on behalf claim, the readily identifiable. Self-em- analyzing the which was rights. plaintiffs religious community be persons initially ployed Court held accepted system as sincere dis- having own “welfare” liefs must secur generality wage social compulsory contribution from the tinguishable these interfere with indeed ity system others. employed earners at 455 U.S. beliefs. been Congress and courts have only ... conclusion 1054-55. “[T]his flowing to the needs sensitive end of the however, not the beginning, Clause, every person Exercise but Free a limita may justify The state inquiry_ inci- from all burdens be shielded cannot it showing that liberty by tion on aspect exercising every dent to overriding accomplish is essential When practice religious beliefs. right to interest.” governmental into particular of a sect enter followers (citing Thomas at 1055-56 choice, activity matter of as a commercial cases). Noting that other they accept on their own con- limits interests welfare important public serves faith of conscience as a matter duct is indis “mandatory participation and that superimposed the statu- on are not to vitality of the social to the fiscal pensable binding oth- tory which are on schemes concluded the Court next security system,” exemp- activity. Granting an in ers that in assur interest Government’s that “the security an em- taxes to tion from social participation mandatory and continuous ing impose employer’s operates to ployer security to the social in and contribution employees. Con- religious faith on at high.” 455 U.S. very system is exempting 1402(g), line in gress drew a at 1055-56. 102 S.Ct. per- not self-employed Amish but all inquiry “whether Turning final working employer. for an Amish sons [religious] belief accommodating the ... support to imposed on The tax unduly interfere with fulfillment will uni- security system must be the social interest,” governmental all, except Con- formly to applicable the Court stated: 102 S.Ct. explicitly otherwise. gress provides presented Wiscon- in the situation Unlike at 1056-57 455 U.S. at Yoder, difficult to v. it would be sin ... omitted). Compul- (citations footnotes comprehensive social accommodate includ- employers, payment by all sory tax exceptions system myriad security with justified thus religious objectors, was ing religious variety flowing from a wide overriding accomplish an to as “essential system tax could beliefs.... 257- U.S. at governmental interest.” allowed if denominations were function at 1055-56. challenge system tax the tax because Lee, held circuit has Recognizing spent in a that payments were manner that Supreme Court has stated that “the religious Because their belief. violates in interest revenue-rais- maintaining government’s in public interest the broad sufficiently compelling high order, system tax is of such a statutes sound rights those' religious pay- outweigh in conflict free exercise belief with reli- taxes affords no for resist- offensive their ment of basis find the statute who States, F.2d v. United ing the tax. Nelson gion.” Cir.1986). (6th Accordingly, we Congress accommodated, to the ex- Quaker claim of a the free exercise denied compatible comprehensive tent with a na- filing a friv- penalized for who had been program, practices tional of those had return she olous income tax because it a violation faith to of their believe her due to claimed a “war tax deduction” participate security system. in the social 1402(g) Congress grant- against govern- the federal beliefs [26 U.S.C.] § part exemption, ed on tax revenues in grounds, ment’s use of Id. case military purposes. Baptist Accord Collett and Lee. See Bethel Church States, (6th (3d States, 781 F.2d v. United 822 F.2d Cir. United Cir.1987) (holding 1985) that in a (Lee Lee controls establishes “[a] substantially security identical social tax in or moral belief conflict with the belief involving case employer-taxpay- no re payment of taxes affords basis for er). Accordingly, beсause the circum- tax.”); sisting the see also Graves v. present of the stances case are substantial- Revenue, 579 F.2d Comm’r Internal ly Lee, identical to those in we too conclude (in (6th Cir.1978) case, pre-Lee mandatory participation in the Ohio pacifist holding requirement compensation program does not Quaker tax pay Congress income which rights. violate church’s free exercise military spend part pur chooses the free exercise poses does not violate above, As noted in this court clause, since the income tax “neutral compelling case identified two state inter- uniformly amongst religion, mandatory ... levied participation ests in in the work- beliefs, and those persons program: keeping of various ers’ belief.”). solvent, protecting fund and also workers dependents. Although and their the dis- unable to We find ourselves distin parties trict appeal court and the on con- way guish meaningful the issues comprehensive inquiry ducted a into wheth- this case from rationale Lee. Just participation mandatory er was the “least Supreme as the Court determined means” to inter- restrictive achieve these payment do of taxes so we hold that ests, dispatches Baptist’s Ridge Lee South support public program in of a insurance free claim on the basis free exercise of terferes with solvency By citing interest alone. Thomas Likewise, just as the its beliefs. stating in a restriction on government’s in found the federal Court compel- to liberty must be “essential” maintaining vitality in the fiscal of terest interest, ling government the Court in Lee sys age unemployment benefits its old appears implicitly incorporated to have through mandatory participation to be tem means” test into its hold- “least restrictive “very hesitancy in high,” we have hold payment tax ing mandatory solvency its ing interest in the of Ohio’s exercise clause. does not violate the free of an compensation fund to be workers’ reason, unavailing we find For this fact, In high order. the state’s equally ex- arguments that church Church’s great it is is least as since based interest at compensa- emption unemployment in Ohio’s police power to on the state’s fundamental exemption from program and a church its The safeguard the citizens. welfare compensation program of the workers' course, a government, of is crea federal as other state indicate that such least one enjoys no ture of Constitution exemption the Ohio workers’ power. inherent thus con- program is a feasible and stitutionally required “least restrictive to wheth- inquiry final the decisive means.” impaired belief er accommodation of the governmental unduly interferes with the ‍‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‍Closely misunder- related to Church’s Baptist argues that Ridge purpose, South restrictive means” standing of the “least exempted might is the Church’s protesting requirement churches in this context argu- teaching appreciate This is the same program. from the failure to Lee’s further objections The there rejectеd in Lee. Court ment that accommodation legislative task. The Court mandatory participation is a to taxation concluded it would not second- plain “essen- made public tax scheme was in Lee welfare regarding how overriding govern- legislative decisions guess accomplish an tial to religious objections accommodate far to 455 U.S. mental interest.” raising revenue compelling purpose its taxpayer here That the S.Ct. at 1055-56. Congress “The fact that programs. for its of an individual believer church instead exemptions in already crafted some ... this between meaningful distinction not a consequence, Code also is of no ests in the Ohio workers’ pro [tax] guiding principle for the is that a tax ‘must gram by extending exemptions cеrtain all, uniformly applicable except withholding compared others cannot be ” Congress provides explicitly otherwise.’ similar public choices in other Ohio benefit Hernandez v. Comm’r Internal Reve programs and in workers’ — nue, -, 2136, 2149, U.S. programs of other states. It is left to the Lee; (quoting 104 L.Ed.2d 766 em respective legislatures to determine wheth Hernandez). Thus, phasis contrary er compelling the state’s interest in the arguments, exemption vitality programs fiscal of these “employ ministers from the definition of underlying purposes societal would be com employer pay ees” for whom an must promised by exemptions.4 certain selective compensation premiums does not adopt simple We decline to and absolute compelling undercut the state’s interest “least approach common denominator” Here, mandatory employer participation. the first amendment which fails to ac exemption closely parallels minister knowledge programs that different within Congress’ exemption security in the social a state and programs similar in other “readily statute of the “narrow” and identi states have differing statutory objec category “[s]elf-employed per fiable” Baptist New Church Acad tives. Life religious community having sons in a emy v. Town Longmeadow, East system.” own ‘welfare’ 455 U.S. at (1st Cir.1989) (noting F.2d differ exemption “op at 1057. Neither ent among educational standards various impose employer’s religious erates to assessing states in a free chal Id. The same employee[].” faith on the lenge procedures determining to state exemption need not be true Ohio’s ex adequacy of secular education in sec employees employe tended all — den., schools), -, cert. tarian Likewise, r.3 the fact that allows a (1990); 108 L.Ed.2d 784 cf. exemption limited from the Ohio, Martin v. 228, 236, 107 qualify and choose to self- (1987) (in reject L.Ed.2d 267 compel diminish the insure state’s process challenge due to state criminal ling solvency. interest in the fund’s procedure, ques the Court stated that “the regulated option limited and self-insurance tion of whether ... is in violation [a State] fully protect secures the state’s interest in of the Constitution is not ... answered workers; expected it could be that a States.”). cataloging practices of other exemption of not. blanket churches would however, importantly, More decisions re addressing Decisions of other circuits garding coverage of a tax support similar free exercise claims properly legislative for the branch. Baptist Cf. Bethel holding in In this case. County Mozert v. Hawkins Bd. Edu States, 1334, Church v. United 822 F.2d cation, 1058, (6th 827 F.2d 1079-80 Cir. (3d Cir.1987), 1338-39 the Third Circuit 1987) J., (Boggs, concurring) (plaintiffs’ that a held not assert reli challenge constitutional to the content of gious objection public insurance to avoid challenge school curricula is “a to the no paying security employ social taxes for its politically-controlled sys tion of a school States, Varga v. United ees. The court in tem,” Supreme with which Court has aff'd, (D.Md.1979), F.Supp. 467 1113 618 interfered). almost never (4th Cir.1980) (table), rеjected F.2d 106 sum, then, political self-employed similar claim a individual resolutions accommodating religious security achieved in tax- objected paying inter- who social pro- participate public need 3. We not decide if the free exercise clause sinful to insurance grams. compels exempt Ohio to ministers. See 455 11, U.S. at 260 n. 102 S.Ct. at 1057 n. 11. The legisla- 4. We note here that since the Ohio point legislature is that the Ohio has made a pass ture exempt declined to bills to has at least twice significant reasonably and limited effort to ac- compensa- churches from the workers’ practices commodate the of those who believe it program. Appellee’s Brief at 15. every him to six months and must be religious prevented his beliefs es when returned, employer with the completed and accepting program’s benefits. being responsible calculating premi- Also, F.Supp. an Ohio state at 1118. due; um that audits are conducted whenev- rejected and a first court has considered requested by employer or when the er against work amendment claim the state default; employer is in that audits and to the claim ers’ tax identical investigations do not seek information Temple Victory Baptist at issue here. religious clergy of the or about the beliefs Comm’n, App.3d 2 Ohio Industrial congregation; the Bureau does den., (1982), Case cert. 442 N.E.2d 819 workings of not seek to interfere with the den., (June 30, 1982), cert. No. 82-768 the church or the school. L.Ed.2d 931 (1982). legal analysis The district court’s sound, on this issue is with one conclusion

III. opinion exception,5and is affirmed. The by intervening holdings further bolstered clause an establishment To survive Jimmy Swag Supreme of the Court. See secular challenge, a must have a statute — Equalization, gert v. Bd. Ministries pri principal legislative purpose; U.S. -, 107 L.Ed.2d mary of the must be one effect statute (1990)(“Collection ‍‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‍payment religion; and neither advances nor inhibits require will of tax at course [sales issue] excessive en the statute must not foster appellant contact some between religion. tanglement Lemon v. with State, ap generally but we have held Kurtzman, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. recordkeeping plicable administrative and (1971). 2105, 2111-12, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 regulations may imposed on [a] alleges that the administrative Plaintiff organization running afoul of the without necessary to oversight administer Clause.”), Hernandez, Establishment program creates an (“[Rjoutine regulatory 109 S.Ct. at 2147 entanglement which violates excessive application of neutral interaction [such alleges The Church establishment clause. inquiries no tax which involves into (1) upon: laws] entanglement in excessive based doctrine, delegation no ... records; (2) spection of church forced dis power religious body, ... and (3) program; a state funds to bursement monitoring and administra ‘detailed close (4) categoriz reporting; record-keeping secular and tive contact’ between according risk; ing employees bodies, of itself violate the ... pre non-payment of action for enforcement command.”). It nonentanglement follows miums. the from these cases well that district requires that Ohio Rev.Code 4123.23 correctly ruled that the Church had court wage expenditures open be payroll and presented no valid establishment clause requires report- inspection; section 4123.28 claim here as matter of law. illnesses; injuries of sec- job-related or reporting requires aggregate 4123.26 wages employees. remarkably history and number of Mr. The successful of the Linzinmeir, Assistant Director of United last centuries is John the States over the two Auditing/Underwriting undoubtedly many unique for the Bureau of to in due factors long Compensation, experience in an affi- the Workers’ stated common of humankind. However, exceptional summary judg- importance the of has davit submitted with payroll reports ment motion that arе sent been the tolerance of its institutions and scriptural standpoint.” court’s of court on result from a 5. This affirmance irrelevant, F.Supp. being this does not extend that if issue to its remark at 807. Aside from exempted the Church were workers' from the inappropriate. this determination seems injured employee program, an interpreta- scriptural not "Courts are arbiters of charity dissatisfied with the Church’s Thomas, 101 S.Ct. at tion." against pursue have common law it to remedies 1431. courts, in the state “an even more undesirable clause). the free not exercise of does violate thoughts and beliefs the citizenry for to social or- religious objections such religious thought That variety The of others. they not mean dering respected does extraordinary, аnd expression has been and person “[E]very cannot and must heeded. expression freedom of the all the incident to amendment shielded from burdens by the first worship fostered every aspect right prac- a rich the to exercising dream of the brought to American has unparalleled elsewhere. U.S. at heritage religious beliefs.” tice and varied the respect has been guarantee chief at 1057. We our While can amendment, alone that document first to the workers’ com- objections but demands entirely self-operating not be and its remarkable devo- pensation system elector support of a constant tolerant every aspect tion to its beliefs sensitive, healthy, and effective and a ate im- such clash with of lifе. Where beliefs self-government. Unless system for of interests in the portant state welfare and free address government is to civil others, however, is not con- accommodation neces contemporary concerns solve stitutionally mandated. and, survive citizenry, it cannot sities of its many policies practices Undoubtedly respect of the kind command corollary, government time to civil will from religious to which enables consensus inten- repugnant to even best time be in its hundreds religion itself leration given group, especially of a tioned beliefs why, This is flourish. forms to of variant order government seeks to where Yoder, recognized Supreme Court many eth- society encompassing pluralistic based, activi religiously [one’s “even when variety possible groups and the widest nic by the subject regulation are often ties] beliefs, historically at often their undoubted exercise of Undoubtedly another. variance with one health, safety and power promote here, the civil exists where a situation welfare_” 220, 92 U.S. at general and its electorate government of Ohio Ridge Baptist The South necessary to enact a it deemed variety subject to a undoubtedly is Church application even of broad compensation law public regulations, welfare of state prevailing may run afoul though it applica building fire codes zoning, It is or given church sect. dogma of a see, e.g., Lake worship, to its place ble law that such a unconstitu- say difficult wood, Congregation Jеhovah’s group, upon one where tionally impacts Lakewood, Witnesses, City Inc. it equally and spread is law burden (6th Cir.1983) (zoning reg F.2d 306-07 separate group single out that not from construct preventing ulations impact discriminatory treatment. property do not worship on its ing place of Baptist Church Ridge upon the South clause); Forest free exercise violate the compensation laws the workman’s Center, v. Luk Inc. Learning Early Hills any other impact upon than different Cir.1984) (4th hard, 243-44 F.2d in the of Ohio State employer of individuals applicable (health safety regulations Under rate class. premium of the same not burden center do care sectarian child government the civil such circumstances minimum rights), federal free legit- view, yield required, governing labor wage and other standards general for the provide powers to imate practices. employment the Church’s of its accept a diminution and to welfare v. Sec Tony Alamo Foundation & Susan pe- deference out of responsibilities Labor, 290, 303-05, retary of many of of views one particular culiar 85 L.Ed.2d 5.Ct. political sects.6 divergent religious or of the Fair Labor Standards (application AFFIRMED. organization non-profit a Act to compensation law workman’s nothing ferred knowl- to our We further that note to entitled otherwise be or where he she edge employee the church compels an hand, preclude some to other personal On the them. as a similar views matter entertains exercising from employee bеlief not such any other accept the benefits con- conviction WELLFORD, Judge, essary Circuit cover workers’ ben- (and employ- concurring: entity) efits to church related strong a need ees. This data demonstrates reasoning I concur with the and rationale employers included that all church be Judge Engel’s opinion. This is a close among employers pre- all as other covered troubling respect case with to whether (The payers help mium with this deficit. any less “restrictive means” to there system as a has accumulated a defi- whole compensation coverage provide workers’ exceeding one dollars as of De- cit billion employees has for church-related than Ohio 31, 1985.) cember taken. Plaintiff has demonstrated none assume, my logical It as view. addition, provision in Ohio does have a by plaintiff, injury argued that the risk of compensation laws that allows its workers’ jobs in church-related is less than busi- self-insurers, qualified employers to be industry generally, presum- but ness of re- avoiding thus some of the burdens system gives a ably the Ohio rate lower porting employers. as covered employers claims. rate to those with fewer particular There is no indication that this policy per- for the state to It is a decision church, nor that Christian churches as a exemptions exceptions mit or reasonable class, differently treated under been coverage. the Ohio law than other like or religious group. appar- other Plaintiff it has submitted affidavits that Plaintiff ently pursuе option. did not choose to this academy conjunc- or operates school church, B. tion with which Robert therefore, join, affirming I Woodard, principal, the school’s has said is court decision. day “the school minis- part employees try.” We do not know whether BOGGS, Judge, concurring. Circuit in this school are considered and teachers separately I I write because do be employees, also “church” but Woodard every lieve that scheme that taxes “pastor serves as a to the deaf.” Deborah along with other institutions in institutions Miller, affiant, says another she is a teach- necessarily pass society will muster member, academy, a er in the The court under the free exercise clause. part “county the church’s hоme well as a opinion predominantly on the so rests its ministry,” part and has been a of its “col- security case of cial United States lege ministry.” says Ms. Miller also that 252, 102 71 L.Ed.2d 127 plaintiff part she is “a of [the church’s] (1982). highly Because of the diverse reason, then, to staff.” We have believe society, nature of our with an indi mobile operates larger plaintiff with a staff frequently working many em vidual might expected in the usual rural than lifetime, working ployers during a and be Ohio church. the need maintain actuarial cause of Depart- Ohio’s Director of Actuarial ‍‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‍century periods soundness over of half a indicating ment submitted an affidavit also more, security system represents the social $39,000,- taken in some that the state has compelling justifications one of the most premiums from the “classification legislative adopt for a decision to a uniform religious organizations that covers such as system exemptions. with no Id. at During that churches” from 1982 to 1985. 102 S.Ct. at 1055-56. liability” period same “the State incurred $59,000,000 compensation, “in on the other some Workers’ hand, financing system injured essentially to those workers of em- benefits ployers,” plaintiff. arrangements This data indi- contractual worker between generally in- premiums employer. cates a deficit in nec- It would not substantial merely employee equal protection the benefits of the Act because the the of the state's law opposes prefers provide Church itself them or merely personal religious because of the beliefs manner, them in a differеnt could not es- for employer. of his danger cape prospective denying the that

1213 Verner, as v. in cases such Sherbert society dence for the scheme terrupt a coherent 1790, 398, 10 965 83 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 374 U.S. following: the any of to do moving seems to be (1963),the now Court employers objecting religiously (1) Allow away from those cases. strongly they insuring that self-insure, thus the Smith, stated for Court Justice Scalia through excessive “looted” not be would “compelling gov- test of the Sherbert em- of secular for the benefit premiums really been had never ernmental interest” ployers; unemployment outside the applied em- through direct (2) Require, either context, successfully ap- and never in- employer purchase, or purchase, ployee at 1602. Id. 110 S.Ct. plied. as same benefits the providing surance compensation unemployment In the compensation;1 arguments cases, made similar the states to work wish employees who Allow here, unemployment that the state to those such enterprises, religiously based for might depleted funds compensation here, opt out of workers’ the Church revenues, but those of tax the withdrawal with take their chances Supreme aside the were brushed claims they so choose. system, the tort 407, Sherbert, See, 374 U.S. e.g., Court. indicated, the course, the court Of Board, 1795; Thomas v. Review 83 S.Ct. at option, provide the first of Ohio state 723 n. attempt to has made church 1434 n. 67 L.Ed.2d circumstances, these it. Under for Certainly, it be difficult (1981). would state, that by the expressed the concern problems that оbjective observer money- as the sought exemption by the could be caused per- state, greater takes on the losers (whether problems those here by plaintiff suasiveness. fund or to workers be to however, are, ir- employment) not figures to enter state’s choose The plaintiff interest could proposition government onclad for believe subsidiz- set ringingly would forth churches similar meet standard statis- state. The state’s rest of the Sherbert: only class employer for an 62% tics are abuses, endangering [o]nly gravest churches, Of those are churches. which interests, give occasion paramount are churches with less than 5% limitation. permissible plaintiff. It is those of similar to scruples Sherbert, 83 S.Ct. at atU.S. fact-finding additional possible that thus Collins, 323 U.S. (quoting Thomas good probabil- might develop that there is (1945)). 315, 322, 89 L.Ed. to force the the state wants ity that they are system into the because churches appears to now Supreme Court Since However, system. for the money-makers applicability those have confined plaintiff has submitted no affidavits field of limited unem- to the rather words effect. reluctantly I must compensation, ployment opinion. court’s concur Supreme quite Court’s recent Finally, the Division, Depart Employment decision Oregon v. Human Resources

ment — U.S. -, Smith, (1990), that the indicates L.Ed.2d by the

right of free exercise is limited

necessity comply neu “to with a valid and general Despite applicability.”

tral law Supreme previous jurispru- Court’s e.g., way. employment either 1. would not matter in ultimate sent a cost of ‍‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‍It (1973). employer employee Today whether the had or effect at 124 R. Economics Miller, purchase. repre- costs make

Case Details

Case Name: South Ridge Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 17, 1990

Citation: 911 F.2d 1203

Docket Number: 88-3091

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.