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

1,213 chars

differences bearing a natural, reasonable, and just relation to the subject matter of

the act.” State ex rel. Bacich v. Huse, 187 Wash. 75, 84, 59 P.2d 1101 (1936),

overruled on other grounds by Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass’n v. Moos, 92 Wn.2d

939, 603 P.2d 819 (1979). Put differently, “[t]he distinctions giving rise to the

classification must be germane to the purposes contemplated by the particular law.”

Id. We “do not extend the legislature permission to ‘proceed incrementally,’ instead

[we] tak[e] a statute as [we] find it.” Ockletree, 179 Wn.2d at 797 (Stephens, J.,

dissenting) (quoting Jonathan Thompson, The Washington Constitution’s

Prohibition on Special Privileges and Immunities: Real Bite for “Equal Protection”

Review of Regulatory Legislation?, 69 TEMPLE L. REV. 1247, 1278-79 (1996)).

RCW 49.60.010 states the legislature’s goal or purpose:

This chapter shall be known as the “law against discrimination.” It is an
exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public

-15-
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)