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
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Full Text
1,727 charsprematurely reaching constitutional claims that are not before us. SUGM does not advance any specific argument on direct review claiming that the ministerial exception applies and it does not explicitly argue its lawyers are ministers under Hosanna-Tabor. SUGM correctly recognizes, “[I]n Hosanna-Tabor, it was the employer who put the job role at issue as a constitutional, affirmative defense to a generally applicable law.” Br. of Resp’t at 25. That is not the posture of the case before us. Doctrinally speaking, courts consider Hosanna-Tabor’s reasoning when raised as a constitutional defense to WLAD under the First Amendment—not to construct reasonable grounds for the exemption under article I, section 12. Since SUGM asserted the ministerial exception as an affirmative defense in its answer, CP at 16, I would remand for further proceedings and allow the parties to brief and argue about the applicability of that defense in the superior court. See, e.g., Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, 175 Wn.2d 659, 665-66, 286 P.3d 357 (2012) -21- 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) (plurality opinion) (remanding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claim for further proceedings to establish whether the ministerial exception applies). A remaining question is whether SUGM should also be able to pursue other defenses grounded in claims of religious freedoms. Specifically, SUGM broadly asserts application of WLAD to its employment decisions would violate its free exercise rights under the First Amendment and article I, section 11 of the