Court Opinion

ID: 9742637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:17:18.531052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:34.345489
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
(concurring). In this case appellant challenges the constitutional validity of an oath required of her as a condition of her continued employment as a Wayne county civil service employee. The oath required her to swear, or affirm, that she “was not a Communist.” It is her claim that the requirement of taking the oath deprived her of rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
*678Appellant also challenges the validity of the oath on other than constitutional grounds. She claims that, assuming the constitutionality of section 24 of PA 1941, No 370,* the oath was invalid because in direct conflict with the express provisions of that section of the act. The statutory language relied upon by appellant follows:
“No person in the classified civil service or seeking admission thereto, shall he appointed, reduced or removed, or in any way favored or discriminated against because of his political, racial, or religious opinions or affiliations, except for membership in any organization which has advocated or does advocate disloyalty to the government of the United States or any subdivision thereof.”
Important as these issues are, particularly the issue of the oath’s constitutionality in view of its direct inquiry regarding one’s beliefs as distinguished from one’s associational memberships, I do not believe it is appropriate for this Court to seek in this appeal to resolve them.
This Court has concluded, and I agree, that because of plaintiff’s delay of over 3 years in presenting her salary claim to the county hoard of auditors or in otherwise contesting the validity of her discharge, “she must he presumed to have acquiesced in her discharge and to have abandoned her claim.” Proceeding beyond that holding, 3 members of the Court today assume to pass judgment on the weighty constitutional questions sought to be raised by appellant. It has been my understanding that constitutional questions are not decided by this Court unless essential to decision. Goodenough v. Department of Revenue, 328 Mich 56, 68; Cole v. City of Battle Creek, 298 Mich 98, 104, and cases cited therein.
*679Perhaps there are some circumstances which would justify our determination of such questions even in the absence of decisional necessity, but in my view this appeal presents no such circumstance.
Because I concur in the Court’s finding that appellant, by her long delay, acquiesced in her discharge and abandoned her claim,. I concur in affirmance.
Kavanagh and Otis M. Smith, JJ., concurred with Souris, J.

 CL 1948, § 38.424 (Stat Ann 1961 Rev § 5.1191 [24]).