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

1,800 chars

violates article I, section 12 antifavoritism principles. I would also reject SUGM’s

asserted defenses under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

except insofar as it can prove the ministerial exception applies to Woods’s

employment.

A. The Religious Nonprofit Exemption Violates Article I, Section 12
Antifavoritism Principles

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.”

In years past, we interpreted article I, section 12 like the federal equal

protection clause. Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566, 571, 316 P.3d 482 (2014).

But over time “[o]ur cases . . . recognized that the text and aims of article I, section

12 differ from that of the federal equal protection clause.” Ockletree v. Franciscan

Health Sys., 179 Wn.2d 769, 775-76, 317 P.3d 1009 (2014) (lead opinion). Congress

passed the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War in part to prevent states from

denying any person equal protection under the law. See State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d

263, 283, 814 P.2d 652 (1991) (Utter, J., concurring). The framers of our privileges

-8-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, 96132-8
(Stephens, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part)

and immunities clause, in contrast, “intended to prevent people from seeking certain

privileges or benefits to the disadvantage of others.” Id. The clause aims to prevent

“favoritism and special treatment for a few.” Id. For this reason, we now apply an

independent analysis from the federal equal protection clause in cases involving