Opinion ID: 2196917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: cases cited in majority opinion

Text: The majority opinion cites numerous cases from other jurisdictions to support its conclusion that the agricultural exclusion withstands constitutional scrutiny. I find those cases to be either distinguishable or unpersuasive. At least two of the cases cited by the majority are wholly inapposite. Ross v. Ross, 308 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 1981), and Eastway v. Eisenga, 420 Mich. 410, 362 N.W.2d 684 (1984), involved statutes markedly different from ours. The Iowa and Michigan statutes at issue in those cases did not include a blanket exemption of agricultural workers. Rather, those statutes provided mandatory coverage for agricultural workers in general, but excluded certain classes of farm workers. In Iowa, certain relatives of the farm employer were excluded. See Ross, supra, 308 N.W.2d at 53. In Michigan, the act excluded farm employers who did not employ a minimum number of workers for certain minimum periods of time. See Eastway, supra, 362 N.W.2d at 686-687. These cases presented constitutional challenges wholly different from those presented here. I might well agree that a statute that covers agricultural workers generally, but excludes relatives, exchange work, and small operations employing less than three workers, passes constitutional muster. However, the Iowa and Michigan cases do not support the majority's conclusion here. Another group of cases cited by the majority address the constitutional issue only in dicta, or give it such short shrift that they can hardly be considered persuasive. For example, the entire discussion of this issue in Cueto v. Stahmann Farms, Inc., 94 N.M. 223, 608 P.2d 535, 536 (Ct.App.1980), is as follows: Cueto also seems to argue that the exemption denies him equal protection. It does not; the exemption is not arbitrary, but has a reasonable basis. Similarly, in Fitzpatrick v. Crestfield Farm, Inc., 582 S.W.2d 44, 45 (Ky.Ct.App.1978), the court's entire discussion consists of only two sentences: In order to dispose of this appeal in an expeditious manner, we will briefly comment that appellant's third issue presented to us, namely, that the agriculture exclusion contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act is violative of the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions because of discriminatory classification of workers, is without merit. Furthermore, as was the situation in Peck v. Conder, Ky., 540 S.W.2d 10 (1976), we will not express an opinion with respect to the possible invalidity of a statute when such an issue was not presented on appeal to the circuit court from the board. The last sentence suggests that the court did not, in fact, determine the validity of the statute. A similar result occurred in State ex rel. Hammond v. Hager, 160 Mont. 391, 503 P.2d 52 (1972). After a lengthy discussion of the constitutional issue, the court, in a decision signed by three judges, abruptly stated: In addition, in Montana we have a long line of cases holding that constitutional questions will not be determined unless their determination is essential to the disposition of the case. Hammond, supra, 503 P.2d at 57. Two judges concurred in the result, stressing that no constitutional issue is properly before the Court in this proceeding. Hammond, supra, 503 P.2d at 57 (Haswell and Daly, JJ., specially concurring). The three remaining cases cited by the majority do appear to hold that the agricultural exclusions in the workers compensation acts of those states do not violate their respective state or federal equal protection clauses. See Collins v. Day, 604 N.E.2d 647 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Otto v. Hahn, 209 Neb. 114, 306 N.W.2d 587 (1981); Baskin v. State ex rel. Worker's Compensation Division, 722 P.2d 151 (Wyo.1986). My only response to these cases is that I do not find them to be persuasive, and I respectfully disagree with them. I find far more persuasive the well-written opinion of the Supreme Court of Colorado in Higgs v. Western Landscaping & Sprinkler Systems, Inc., 804 P.2d 161 (Colo.1991) (en banc). In Higgs, the court considered the constitutionality of provisions of Colorado's workers compensation act that treated agricultural workers differently than other workers. Specifically, the statute, although not excluding farm labor from coverage, included the value of room and board within the definition of wages for all workers except farm and ranch employees. Applying the more liberal scrutiny of the rational basis test, the court still concluded that the discrimination against farm and ranch workers violated equal protection. Higgs, supra, 804 P.2d at 165. The court specifically disagreed with the conclusion of the Colorado Court of Appeals that the disparate treatment of farm and ranch employees was reasonably related to the `longstanding governmental interest in assisting the agricultural industry.'  Higgs, supra, 804 P.2d at 163-164. Particularly enlightening is the court's discussion of the discriminatory nature of the classification: There undoubtedly are many categories of employees who work under contracts of hire and receive housing and other advantages from the employer, in addition to money wages, in consideration of their labor. Many of these employees perform services similar, although not necessarily identical, to the services performed by farm and ranch employees. The fact that, in contrast to the taxable waitress's tips involved in Petrafeck [ v. Industrial Commission, 191 Colo. 566, 554 P.2d 1097 (1976) ], section 8-47-101(2) utilizes the employee's W-2 form as a proxy for a farm or ranch employee's wages does not serve to render the value of housing and similar advantages received from the employer something other than part of the consideration for which the farm or ranch employee provides services under the contract of hire. The further fact that farm and ranch employees are usually employed on a seasonal basis does not provide a rational basis, in our view, for singling out this category of employees for disparate treatment through the application of a substantially reduced formula for computing their workers' compensation benefits. Where, as here, the statutory scheme requires that the computation of workers' compensation benefits for all employees except farm and ranch employees be based on cash wages as well as housing and similar advantages received from the employer, the statutory exclusion of the reasonable value of housing and similar advantages from the computation of workers' compensation benefits for farm and ranch employees constitutes an artificial distinction lacking a reasonable basis in fact. We do not lightly declare a statute unconstitutional. We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the disparate treatment accorded to farm and ranch employees with respect to the computation of workers' compensation benefits is based on an arbitrary and illusory distinction that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny under equal protection analysis. Higgs, supra, 804 P.2d at 165 (Emphasis added; footnote omitted). The court continued: One of the salutary goals of equal protection of the laws is to prohibit a state from singling out a discrete group of persons for disparate treatment under the aegis of furthering what ostensibly might be viewed in isolation as a legitimate state interest. To be sure, assisting the agricultural industry is a legitimate governmental interest. The financial interest of the agricultural industry, however, is ancillary at best to the primary goal of the Workers' Compensation Act, which, as previously noted, is to relieve injured workers from the adverse economic effects caused by disabling work-related injuries ... To sanction the disparate treatment accorded farm and ranch employees by section 8-47-101(2) would subject the employees' equal protection rights to unrestricted legislative license and would thereby deprive the equal protection principle of much of its meaningful content. We decline to follow such a course. Higgs, supra, 804 P.2d at 166. I am in full agreement with the rationale expressed by the Colorado Supreme Court, and I believe it supports my conclusion that the agricultural exemption in Section 65-01-02(22)(a), N.D.C.C., violates the equal protection provision in Article I, Section 21 of the North Dakota Constitution.