Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,720 chars
accomplish an overriding governmental interest.” United States v. Lee, 455 U.S.

252, 257-58, 102 S. Ct. 1051, 1055, 71 L. Ed. 2d 127 (1982).

We apply two levels of scrutiny to laws that allegedly burden religion under

the free exercise clause. Arlene’s Flowers, 193 Wn.2d at 519. We apply rational

basis review to neutral laws of general applicability. Id. And we apply strict scrutiny

to “laws that discriminate against some or all religions (or regulate conduct because

it is undertaken for religious reasons).” Id.

“A law is not neutral for purposes of a First Amendment free exercise

challenge if ‘the object of [the] law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because

of their religious motivation.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Lukumi Babalu

Aye, 508 U.S. at 533). The object of WLAD in the context at issue here is the

“elimination and prevention of discrimination in employment.” RCW 49.60.010.

-23-
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)

The legislature did not intend WLAD to infringe on or restrict employment decisions

because of their religious motivation. SUGM has not shown, for example, that the

legislature enacted WLAD to burden religious employers’ employment practices or

to specifically target them based on their creeds. I would hold WLAD is neutral

under First Amendment free exercise doctrine. The next question is whether WLAD

is a law of general applicability.

A law generally applies if it does not selectively “impose burdens only on

conduct motivated by religious belief.” Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 543. As