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

1,756 chars

invalidating an antidiscrimination law under a free exercise strict scrutiny analysis.”

See 193 Wn.2d at 530-31 (collecting cases in which antidiscrimination laws have

survived strict scrutiny). I would therefore hold that SUGM’s broadly asserted

defense under article I, section 11 fails, even assuming strict scrutiny applies. See

id. at 528-32. On remand, SUGM may seek to establish a narrow affirmative defense

based on the ministerial exception, but that defense is not part of our article I, section

12 analysis and is not before us on review.

-30-
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)

CONCLUSION

RCW 49.60.040(11)’s exemption of religious nonprofits from WLAD’s

definition of employer violates our state privileges and immunities clause on

antifavoritism grounds. Applying reasonable grounds review, I would invalidate the

categorical exemption as it was actually applied here—to categorically exempt

SUGM from Woods’s claims of employment discrimination. While I believe this is

the correct holding under article I, section 12, such a holding does not deny

employers like SUGM religious freedoms. Though broadly asserted claims of free

exercise fail, the narrow ministerial exception may be asserted as a defense to

WLAD liability. I would remand to the superior court so that SUGM may seek to

prove that applying WLAD to its decision not to hire Woods violates its right under

the federal and state religion clauses based on the ministerial exception.

Accordingly, while I dissent from the majority’s analysis and conclusion under

article I, section 12, I concur in the result.