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

1,799 chars

both counter-factual and inconsistent with the majority’s own fundamental rights

analysis.

Contrary to the majority’s description, the religious employer exemption

reflects no balancing of interests based on an employer’s exercise of religious

6
Today’s majority repeats the rejected view of the lead opinion in Ockletree, which
had insisted that “protection from discrimination in private employment is a creature of
statutory enactment.” 179 Wn.2d at 780. However, both the concurrence and dissent in
Ockletree held that the statutory exemption implicates a fundamental right and is thus
subject to scrutiny for reasonable grounds under article I, section 12. Id. at 806 (Wiggins,
J., concurring in part in dissent), 794-97 (Stephens, J., dissenting). Indeed, given WLAD’s
recognition of the “civil right” to “obtain and hold employment without discrimination,”
RCW 49.60.030(1)(a), the dissent in Ockletree observed, “It is simply incredible for the
lead opinion to suggest that Washington citizens enjoyed no state common-law remedy for
discrimination until 1973⸺and that even today they must rely on state and federal
legislative grace to vindicate their rights.” 179 Wn.2d at 796.

-13-
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)

freedoms. It applies only to religious nonprofits and, as observed in Farnam, it

applies to all activities of such nonprofits regardless of whether they are religious

activities. 116 Wn.2d at 676-77. Thus, a secular employer exercising protected

religious rights cannot claim the exemption, while a religious nonprofit enjoys the

legislatively granted immunity carte blanche. The majority, under the guise of an