Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/961328.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,762 chars

discrimination is subject to a careful balance of rights under our state constitution,

the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and United States Supreme

Court decisions. I am cognizant of the evolving legal landscape at the national

level and agree that a limited “as applied” approach is an appropriate exercise of

judicial restraint and a prudent way to resolve this case.

Our court’s decision today is not a carte blanche license to discriminate

against members of the LGBTQ+ community who are employed by religious

institutions. Rather it recognizes the statutory prohibitions against discrimination

while also recognizing a limited and narrow ministerial exception required to

alleviate a substantial and concrete burden on the free exercise of religious

freedom. As noted by the majority and the dissent (Justice Stephens dissenting in
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, No. 96132-8
(Yu, J., concurring)

part and concurring in part), we utilize a two pronged analysis to determine

whether a statutory provision violates article I, section 12 of the Washington

Constitution. We ask: Does the statute grant a privilege or immunity and if so, are

there reasonable grounds for such privilege or immunity? (see majority at 9;

dissent in part at 11). I would hold that there are no reasonable grounds to afford

the privilege of the WLAD exemption to SUGM because SUGM cannot enjoy a

free exercise right to discriminate against an employee who performs nonreligious

duties, such as a staff attorney. However, because there are factual questions

regarding the duties of the staff attorney, I ultimately concur in the court’s decision

to remand.