Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,762 chars
ministerial exception. Wash. Supreme Court oral argument, Woods v. Seattle’s

Union Gospel Mission, No. 96132-8 (Oct. 10, 2019), at 28 min., 21 sec., video

recording by TVW, Washington State’s Public Affairs Network,

http://www.tvw.org.

5
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)

On the other hand, most of the circumstances of an ODLS staff attorney

weigh against finding that such a position qualifies for the ministerial exception.

Unlike the employer in Hosanna-Tabor, SUGM does not hold a staff attorney “out

as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members.” 565 U.S. at

191. To the contrary, to the extent ODLS staff attorneys are tasked with furthering

SUGM’s religious mission, the same is true of “every Mission employee.” CP at

64; see also id. at 699. Also unlike the employment position in Hosanna-Tabor,

the ODLS staff attorney position does not require “a significant degree of religious

training followed by a formal process of commissioning” as a minister. Hosanna-

Tabor, 565 U.S. at 191. There is also no evidence that any ODLS staff attorney

has held themselves out as a minister by claiming “a special housing allowance on

[their] taxes that [is] available only to employees earning their compensation ‘in

the exercise of the ministry,’” or that staff attorneys were ever expected or required

to do so. Id. at 192 (internal quotation marks omitted).

As noted by the majority, the Supreme Court has further clarified the inquiry

by cautioning against the use of titles as an exclusive test since “what matters, at

bottom, is what an employee does.” Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch., 140 S. Ct. at