Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,764 chars

He sued the hospital for, among other things, a violation of WLAD, asserting that his

termination was the result of illegal discrimination on the basis of race and disability.

Ockletree, 179 Wn.2d at 772. The hospital moved to dismiss Larry Ockletree’s WLAD

claim, arguing that the hospital was exempt as a nonprofit religious organization under

RCW 49.60.040(11). This court issued three opinions in a 4-4-1 split. The lead opinion

held that RCW 49.60.040(11) was not facially unconstitutional under article I, section

12’s privileges and immunities clause. Id. at 788-89 (Johnson, J., lead opinion). The

concurrence agreed that RCW 49.60.040(11) is not facially unconstitutional but said it

would have held that the provision is unconstitutional as applied to Ockletree. Id. at 805

(Wiggins, J., concurring in part in dissent). Thus, five justices agreed that RCW

49.60.040(11)’s religious employer exemption is not facially invalid. Id. at 772

(Johnson, J., lead opinion), 805 (Wiggins, J., concurring in part in dissent).

7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

Because Woods challenges the religious employer exemption under WLAD as it

relates specifically to his case, he advances an as-applied challenge, and we review it as

such. 2

Article I, section 12

Article I, section 12 provides, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen,

class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which

upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.” The

purpose of article I, section 12 is to limit the type of favoritism that ran rampant during

Washington State’s territorial period. Ockletree, 179 Wn.2d at 775 (citing ROBERT F.