Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,731 chars

Justice Yu’s concurring opinion is helpful in this regard. See concurrence at 3-6.

Whether an employee qualifies as a “minister” is a legal question and the title a legal

term. Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 190. Woods acknowledges that all SUGM employees

are expected to evangelize, but there is no evidence that staff attorneys had titles as

ministers or training in religious matters comparable to Hosanna-Tabor’s teacher. And

while staff attorneys are expected to share their faith with clients as opportunities arise,

there is no evidence that they are expected to nurture their converts’ development in the

Christian faith similar to the job duties performed by the teachers in Our Lady of

Guadalupe and Hosanna-Tabor. Further, neither SUGM nor ODLS is a church or

religious entity principally responsible for the spiritual lives of its members. SUGM

employees are expected to be active members of local churches; SUGM employment

alone does not appear to be sufficient religious affiliation. Employees held to be

ministers in Our Lady of Guadalupe and Hosanna-Tabor led faith groups and taught

religious doctrine. The record indicates that these duties occur outside SUGM, in local

churches for SUGM employees. Moreover, Woods sought employment with SUGM as a

lawyer specifically, not as a religious minister or teacher, and there is no indication that

religious training is necessary for the staff attorney position, unlike the teachers in

20
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

Hosanna-Tabor. 6 See concurrence at 6 (citing Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 191). It is

best left to the trial court to determine whether staff attorneys can qualify as ministers