Court Opinion

ID: 9540778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:19:48.724163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:19.773126
License: Public Domain

DANA, J.,
with whom CALKINS, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 19] Although I agree we must vacate, because the record does not and could not support a finding that the Mission is “principally supported by ... [an] association of churches,” I would remand and direct a judgment for the plaintiff. First, there is no evidence that the ninety-six churches are an association (unless every time multiple churches give money to an entity they become an “association”) and, there is undisputed evidence that the Mission is principally supported by funds currently contributed by individuals and by income from funds previously contributed by individuals (endowments). Second, there is no evidence in the record from which the Commission, on remand, could value the “goods and services” provided by the ninety-six churches or by the two national entities (again assuming that the churches and the entities form an “association”). Finally, there is no evidence from which the Commission could possibly divine the extent to which advocacy by the ninety-six preachers in the ninety-six churches motivated the donors of the current gifts and the endowment funds. For all these reasons, I would not invite the Commission to do the impossible, and would remand with instructions to award the plaintiff her unemployment benefits.