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

1,756 chars
5
We have never equated fundamental rights guaranteed by the federal due process
clause with the fundamental rights of state citizenship protected under article I, section 12.
Those two categories of fundamental rights are distinct—they protect different rights for
different reasons. It would be anachronistic for the framers of Washington’s constitution
in 1889 to have intended to safeguard rights that would not be protected under federal due
process for a generation. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L.
Ed. 1042 (1923). Moreover, fundamental rights of state citizenship are not necessarily
fundamental federal constitutional rights. See Ockletree, 179 Wn.2d at 793 (Stephens, J.,
dissenting) (collecting cases and noting we have applied a standard less stringent than strict
scrutiny to cases involving the fundamental right to sell cigars, animal feed, and eggs).

-11-
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)

Cotten v. Wilson, 27 Wn.2d 314, 317-20, 178 P.2d 287 (1947) (holding the right to

sue in negligence is a privilege of state citizenship protected by article I, section 12).

We should recognize Woods enjoys a fundamental right of state citizenship to seek

redress for employment discrimination and proceed under our two part privileges

and immunities analysis. Schroeder, 179 Wn.2d at 572-73. “First, we ask whether

a challenged law grants a ‘privilege’ or ‘immunity’ for purposes of our state

constitution.” Id. at 573 (quoting Grant, 150 Wn.2d at 812). “If the answer is yes,

then we ask whether there is a ‘reasonable ground’ for granting that privilege or