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

1,727 chars
ecclesiastical employment. “This does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a

general immunity from secular laws, but it does protect their autonomy with respect

to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central

mission. And a component of this autonomy is the selection of the individuals who

play certain key roles.” Our Lady of Guadalupe, 140 S. Ct. at 2060.

Application of WLAD to SUGM’s discriminatory employment practices does

not violate SUGM’s free exercise rights under the First Amendment with reference

to nonministerial positions. But that holding does not preclude SUGM or any

religious employer from arguing a constitutional affirmative defense under the First

Amendment’s religion clauses based on the ministerial exception. See generally id.;

-25-
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)

Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. 171. Whether SUGM’s lawyers are ministers is not

before us on review and remains to be addressed on remand. I next turn to SUGM’s

state constitutional claim that article I, section 11 shields SUGM from liability under

the statute—it does not.

C. WLAD Does Not Violate SUGM’s Right to “Absolute Freedom of
Conscience in All Matters of Religious Sentiment, Belief and Worship”
under Article I, Section 11 except in the Narrow Context of Ministerial
Employment

Besides asserting its First Amendment rights, SUGM argues holding it liable

under WLAD would violate article I, section 11 of the Washington State

Constitution.

Article I, section 11 provides, in part, “Absolute freedom of conscience in all