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

1,702 chars

code that excludes . . . homosexual behavior,’” CP at 4 (alteration in original)

(quoting SUGM’s Employee Code of Conduct), and I assume WLAD substantially

burdens the exercise of that belief by preventing employment discrimination based

on sexual orientation. See RCW 49.60.030(1)(a). So the question becomes whether

WLAD serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive way to

achieve that interest. Arlene’s Flowers, 193 Wn.2d at 527.

-27-
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)

In the context of racial discrimination in employment, the United States

Supreme Court has held, “The Government has a compelling interest in providing

an equal opportunity to participate in the work force without regard to race, and

prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical

goal.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 733, 134 S. Ct. 2751, 189

L. Ed. 2d 675 (2014). The same result applies here. Preventing employment

discrimination based on sexual orientation is a compelling governmental interest just

like preventing employment discrimination based on race is. See, e.g., Telescope

Media Grp. v. Lucero, 936 F.3d 740, 777 (8th Cir. 2019) (“If eradicating

discrimination based on race or sex is a compelling state interest, then so is

Minnesota’s interest in eradicating discrimination based on sexual orientation.”). 9

Discrimination against protected classes “menaces the institutions and foundation of

a free democratic state.” RCW 49.60.010. WLAD serves a compelling