Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,765 chars

discrimination in employment in places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement);

LAWS OF 2006, ch. 4 (expanding WLAD’s protection against discrimination based on

sexual orientation). RCW 49.60.040(11)’s inclusion in the enacting legislation and its

continued existence demonstrate that the legislature plainly intended to include the

exemption in WLAD.

Our state’s protection of religion also explains the religious employer exemption.

RCW 49.60.040(11); WASH. CONST. art. I, § 11. Ockletree noted the critically important

distinction between religious and secular nonprofits: religious organizations have the

right to religious liberty. 179 Wn.2d at 783-84 (citing WASH. CONST. art. I, § 11). The

12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

greater protection offered by article I, section 11 than that of the First Amendment is

evidence for treating religious nonprofits differently. Id. at 784; see also First Covenant

Church v. City of Seattle, 120 Wn.2d 203, 224, 840 P.2d 174 (1992) (noting article I,

section 11 of Washington’s constitution is “stronger than the federal constitution”).

In addition, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the exemption for

religious organizations from federal discrimination suits in order to avoid state

interference with religious freedoms. Ockletree, 179 Wn.2d at 784 (discussing Corp. of

Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327,

336, 107 S. Ct. 2862, 97 L. Ed. 2d 273 (1987)). As five justices agreed in Ockletree,

article I, section 11 and avoidance of state interference with religion constitute real and

substantial differences between religious and secular nonprofits, making it “reasonable