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

1,767 chars

-5-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, 96132-8
(Stephens, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part)

cover letter, he asked SUGM to reconsider its policy. SUGM refused to consider

him for employment.

Woods sued under WLAD, alleging SUGM engaged in discriminatory

employment practices by refusing to hire him because of his sexual orientation. He

directly challenged the constitutionality of RCW 49.60.040(11), WLAD’s religious

nonprofit exemption, arguing it violates our state privileges and immunities clause,

article I, section 12. SUGM stipulated it would be facing a prima facie case of sexual

orientation discrimination if it were a secular employer. But because SUGM is a

religious nonprofit exempt from WLAD under RCW 49.60.040(11), it moved for

summary judgment on the ground that it is not an employer subject to WLAD

liability.

The superior court issued a letter ruling and order granting SUGM’s motion

for summary judgment. It found that SUGM qualifies as a religious nonprofit

employer and that the staff attorneys’ job duties extend beyond providing legal

counsel, to include providing spiritual guidance. The court ruled it would be

impermissible to “determine . . . the relative merits of different religious beliefs.”

CP at 171. It concluded a trial would improperly focus on which activities within

an employee to urge a recovering addict to surrender his or her life to God when the
employee publicly rejects well-known Christian teaching.” CP at 65.

-6-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, 96132-8
(Stephens, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part)