ENTRY FORM | ||
| CALENDAR STATUS: Active | ||
 | | |
SC Number: | | S53972; S54156 |
CA Number: | | A123878 |
Case Title: | | Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education |
Date: | | 03/05/2007 |
Time: | | 10:30 AM |
Location: | | Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College |
Attorneys: | | Jonathan H. Radmacher for petitioner on review, Oregon School Activities Assn Janet A. Metcalf for petitioner on review, Oregon State Board of Education Charles F. Hinkle for respondents on review |
Comments: | | |
Statement of Issues: | | Petitioners Oregon State Board of Education (Board) and Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) seek review of Court of Appeals decisions that reversed and remanded for reconsideration a decision of the Board that concluded that because plaintiffs' proposed religious accommodations would impose more than de minimus costs, OSAA did not violate ORS 659.850 in declining to accept one or more of the proposed accommodations. Claimants are students at Portland Adventist Academy (PAA), a private school and member of OSAA, along with their parents. Claimants also are adherents of the Seventh Day Adventist religion, which observes a Sabbath that runs from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Neither PAA nor the students will participate in competitive activities, including sporting events, that occur during the Sabbath. Initially, the PAA asked OSAA to adjust the Class 2A boys' basketball tournament schedule to avoid a conflict with the Sabbath, and the OSAA agreed to certain accommodations. However, OSAA received complaints from other schools, and later declined to accommodate the students' religious practices. Claimants unsuccessfully appealed that denial to the Board, then sought judicial review. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the Board, holding that ORS 659.850 required OSAA to attempt to find a reasonable accommodation of the students' religious needs and that the Board committed legal error by failing to consider whether OSAA had fulfilled that obligation. Montgomery v. Board of Education, 188 Or App 63 (2003). The Board subsequently issued a final order on reconsideration after remand, in which it made supplemental findings of fact and concluded that OSAA established that each of claimants' proposed accommodations are not reasonable because each would impose an "undue hardship" on OSAA, on its member schools, and on participants in and fans attending the tournament. In reaching that conclusion, the Board determined that an "undue hardship" exists if the proposed accommodation imposes more than a de minimus cost on OSAA. Claimants again sought judicial review, and the Court of Appeals again reversed and remanded for reconsideration. The court held that "undue hardship, " for the purpose of reasonable accommodation analysis, was a significant or substantial burden, and that the Board erred in using the de minimus burden standard to evaluate whether OSAA had reasonably accommodated claimants' religious needs. The court also held that accommodating religious obligations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reported at 204 Or App 535, 131 P3d 749, adh’d to on recons, 206 Or App 568, 138 P3d 854 (2006). Both the Board and OSAA petitioned for review. On review, the issues as framed by petitioners are as follows: (Board): (1) What, generally, is the correct interpretation of ORS 659.850? (2) What standard applies in determining whether a burden imposed to accommodate a person's religious beliefs or practices is "undue?" (3) Whether the correct standard is the "de minimus burden" test used by the Board, or the "significant or substantial burden" test stated by the Court of Appeals? (OSAA): (4) Whether ORS 659.850 requires that those asked to accommodate a person's religious beliefs or practices must bear something more than a "de minimus burden, " or something less than a "significant or substantial burden." (5) Whether the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits an interpretation of ORS 659.850 that requires that the religious needs of adherents be met by imposing something greater than a de minimus burden on those who are asked to accommodate the adherents' needs. |
Justice(s) NOT Participating: | ||
Rives Kistler | ||