Case Name: LANE COUNTY, Respondent, v. STATE OF OREGON, by and through the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Defendant, and Ronald RIDINGS, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-04-21
Citations: 119 Or. App. 504
Docket Number: 16-87-09905; CA A73797
Parties: LANE COUNTY, Respondent, v. STATE OF OREGON, by and through the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Defendant, and Ronald RIDINGS, Appellant.
Judges: Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 119
Pages: 504–505

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 5,
affirmed April 21,
reconsideration denied August 18, petition for review denied September 21,1993 (317 Or 583)
LANE COUNTY, Respondent, v. STATE OF OREGON, by and through the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Defendant, and Ronald RIDINGS, Appellant.
(16-87-09905; CA A73797)
851 P2d 633
David C. Force, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
David B. Williams, Assistant County Counsel, Eugene, argued the cause the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lane County Office of Legal Counsel, Eugene.
Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment, following a trial to the court, dismissing his counterclaims against Lane County. He maintains that the county's policy of selecting sergeants exclusively from employees within a bargaining unit represented by the Lane County Peace Officers' Association violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution.
An Article I, section 20, challenge will succeed if the party asserting the challenge shows
"(1) that another group has been granted a 'privilege' or 'immunity' that their group has not been granted, (2) that the regulations discriminate against a 'true class' on the basis of characteristics that they have apart from the regulations themselves and (3) that the distinction between classes either is impermissibly based on persons' immutable characteristics and reflects 'invidious' social or political premises or has no rational foundation in light of the enabling statute's purposes." Northwest Advancement v. Bureau of Labor, 96 Or App 133, 142, 772 P2d 934, rev den 308 Or 315 (1989).
Alternatively, the challenge will succeed if a privilege or immunity is granted by law on the basis of a classification created by the law, if the law does not leave the class open for others to join on equal terms. State v. Clark, 291 Or 231, 240-41, 630 P2d 810 (1981).
Appellant makes no attempt to fit his case within either framework, apparently conceding that such an attempt would be futile. His argument, although historically interesting, is without merit.
Affirmed.
Article I, section 20, provides:
"No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."