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

1,750 chars

termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and state law. 4

The employer, a Lutheran church and school, moved for summary judgment arguing that

the teacher’s suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims at issue

concerned the employee relationship between a religious institution and one of its

ministers. According to the employer, the employee teacher was a minister and was fired

for a religious reason. Id. at 180.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. It ruled that the facts

surrounding the teacher’s employment in a religious school with a sectarian mission

4
The employee teacher exerted claims for unlawful retaliation under both the ADA, 104 Stat.
327, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1990), and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights
Act, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 37.1602(a). See Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 179-80.

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

supported the employer’s characterization of the teacher as a minister, and the court

inquired no further into the teacher’s claims of retaliation. Id. at 180-81.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the ruling, directing the trial court to

proceed to the merits of the teacher’s retaliation claims. Id. at 181. The Supreme Court

reversed and reinstated summary judgment for the employer, observing, “The First

Amendment provides, in part, that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’” Id. The Court

acknowledged that while “there can be ‘internal tension . . . between the Establishment

Clause and the Free Exercise Clause,’” id. (alteration in original) (quoting Tilton v.