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

1,786 chars

8
The majority fundamentally misunderstands the reasonable grounds analysis under
article I, section 12 when it suggests we should not reach the question of facial invalidity
as to the religious nonprofit exemption. See majority at 7-8. We are not at liberty to rewrite
RCW 49.60.040(11), and that exemption categorically removes religious nonprofits from
the definition of “employer” based solely on their status. Even framing the question as
whether any circumstances exist under which the exemption can stand, it must fail because
religious nonprofit status is not reasonable grounds for discrimination. The majority would
collapse into its reasonable grounds analysis the separate⸺and as yet
unaddressed⸺defense that SUGM may raise to application of WLAD based on the
ministerial exception recognized under the First Amendment and article I, section 11. We
cannot assume the existence of SUGM’s unproven as-applied challenge to WLAD liability
in order to rewrite the statute and then put the burden to Woods to challenge it. I would
hold the categorical exemption that is actually before us is unconstitutional.

-20-
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)

Amendment’s ministerial exception may still serve as a constitutional defense to

suits brought under antidiscrimination laws. But it must remain just that—a

constitutional defense. We should refuse to rewrite an unconstitutional statute. See

City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664, 668-69, 91 P.3d 875 (2004). By

erroneously applying Hosanna-Tabor in the context of article I, section 12, my

colleagues risk endorsing government entanglement with religion, not to mention