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

1,790 chars

MATTHEW S. WOODS, an individual, )
) No. 96132-8
Appellant, )
)
v. )
) En Banc
SEATTLE’S UNION GOSPEL MISSION, )
a Washington nonprofit, )
)
Respondent. ) Filed: March 4, 2021
_______________________________________)

MADSEN, J.—We begin with the proposition that the legislature is entitled to

legislate. WASH. CONST. art. II, § 1. It is entitled to make distinctions and to carve out

exceptions in its assessments of proper public policy, within the constraints of the state

and federal constitutions. See, e.g., WASH. CONST. art. I, § 12. One constraint on

legislative power is that it may not treat differently persons who are similarly situated

unless a rational basis exists to do so and that it may not give persons immunity or
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

privilege without a reasonable basis when a fundamental right is at stake. Id.; U.S.

CONST. amend. XIV.

The issue in this case is whether the legislature extended a privilege or immunity

to religious and other nonprofit, secular employers and whether, in providing the

privilege or immunity, the legislature affected a fundamental right without a reasonable

basis for doing so. Lawmakers enacted Washington’s Law Against Discrimination

(WLAD), ch. 49.60 RCW, to protect citizens from discrimination in employment, and

exempts religious nonprofits from the definition of “employer.” RCW 49.60.040(11). In

enacting WLAD, the legislature created a statutory right for employees to be free from

discrimination in the workplace while allowing employers to retain their constitutional

right, as constrained by state and federal case law, to choose workers who reflect the

employers’ beliefs when hiring ministers. Consequently, we must balance under law