Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,736 chars

for the legislature to treat them differently under WLAD.” Id. at 783, 806 (Wiggins, J.,

concurring in part in dissent).

Though we also conclude reasonable grounds exist to RCW 49.60.040(11) as a

matter of facial constitutionality, the exemption may still be unconstitutional as-applied

to Woods. See Ockletree, 179 Wn.2d at 789 (Stephens, J., dissenting), 806 (Wiggins, J.,

concurring in part in dissent). Woods has identified fundamental rights of state

citizenship: the right to one’s sexual orientation as manifested as a decision to marry.

The first requirement of our article I, section 12 analysis is therefore satisfied. See

Schroeder, 179 Wn.2d at 573. To determine whether reasonable grounds exist to support

a constitutional application of RCW 49.60.040(11)(a)’s exemption in this case, we look

to the ministerial exception outlined by the United States Supreme Court.

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

Ministerial exception

Because WLAD contains no limitations on the scope of the exemption provided to

religious organizations, we seek guidance from the First Amendment as to the

appropriate parameters of the provision’s application. The Supreme Court’s recent

decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe, 140 S. Ct. at 2055, is instructive based on SUGM’s

argument that all of its employees are expected to minister to their clients.

In Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Court reviewed and clarified the ministerial

exception it previously outlined in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.

v. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, 565 U.S. 171, 132 S. Ct. 694, 181 L. Ed. 2d 650

(2012). The Hosanna-Tabor Court addressed an employee’s claims of wrongful