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

1,724 chars

and, consequently, whether Woods’ discrimination claim under WLAD must be barred.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that RCW 49.60.040(11) does not facially violate article I, section 12

of our state constitution. However, we recognize that the provision may still be

unconstitutional as applied to Matthew Woods. To properly balance the competing rights

advanced by Woods and SUGM, we apply the federal ministerial exception test

established in Hosanna-Tabor and clarified in Our Lady of Guadalupe. A material

question of fact remains concerning whether the SUGM staff attorneys qualify as

ministers. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to answer this open

factual question.

6
Justice Yu’s concurring opinion also reviews the ethical constraints specific to lawyers.
Concurrence at 4-7 (discussing relevant Rules of Professional Conduct). These considerations
also serve to distinguish lawyers from ministers under Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of
Guadalupe.

21
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 96132-8

___________________________________

WE CONCUR:

_______________________________ ________________________________

_______________________________ ________________________________
Wiggins, J.P.T.

22
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, No. 96132-8
(Yu, J., concurring)

No. 96132-8

YU, J. (concurring) — I concur with the court’s determination that the

legislature’s decision to exempt religious employers from the right to be free from