Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,727 chars

Whether a position falls within the ambit of the ministerial exception depends on a

“variety of factors.” Id. at 2063. Importantly, the Court clarified that the factors

discussed in Hosanna-Tabor were not meant to be a “checklist.” Id. at 2067. The

“recognition of the significance of those factors . . . did not mean that they must be met—

or even that they are necessarily important—in all other cases.” Id. at 2063. For

example, the title of minister is not itself dispositive, especially considering some

religions do not use the title or are not even formally organized. Id. at 2063-64.

Ultimately, what matters “is what an employee does.” Id. at 2064.

As explained below, Our Lady of Guadalupe and Hosanna-Tabor should guide

our analysis here. Woods cites Hosanna-Tabor as supporting his contention that an

inquiry into the secular nature of the attorney work performed by SUGM staff attorneys

is permissible. He correctly notes that the Supreme Court performed such an inquiry in

Hosanna-Tabor, and more recently in Our Lady of Guadalupe, to conclude that the

16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

ministerial exception applied and barred the discrimination claims of the complaining

employee teachers. 565 U.S. at 190.

Both cases recognize that a plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim must

yield where the employee in question is a minister. The claimant teacher in Hosanna-

Tabor was determined to be a minister, which turned in part on how the church and the

teacher held herself out to the world as a minister of the church. The organization

“issued [the teacher] a ‘diploma of vocation’ according her the title ‘Minister of Religion,