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

1,789 chars

immunity.” Id. (quoting Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake,

145 Wn.2d 702, 731, 42 P.3d 394 (2002)).

As to the first question, we must consider the religious nonprofit exemption

as it was written and how it was actually applied in this case. The exemption

categorically exempts religious nonprofits from WLAD, thereby creating a status-

based privilege to discriminate in employment (or stated differently, an immunity

from WLAD liability for employment discrimination). It operates solely on the basis

of the employer’s status as a religious nonprofit. Ockletree, 179 Wn.2d at 797

(Stephens, J., dissenting), 806 (Wiggins, J., concurring in part in dissent); cf. Farnam

v. CRISTA Ministries, 116 Wn.2d 659, 672-81, 807 P.2d 830 (1991) (holding that

RCW 49.60.040 categorically exempts religious nonprofits, including subsidiaries

-12-
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)

of larger religious nonprofit entities, no matter if the subsidiary itself has an

independent religious purpose). Because the exemption grants religious nonprofits

a privilege or immunity within the meaning of article I, section 12, we next consider

whether reasonable grounds exist for granting such a privilege.

The majority offers several justifications for a WLAD exemption that respects

employers’ religious freedoms. It describes the religious employer exemption as

balancing the “statutory right for employees to be free from discrimination” against

religious employers’ “constitutional right . . . to choose workers who reflect the

employers’ beliefs when hiring ministers.” 6 Majority at 2. But, this description is