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

1,793 chars

matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every

individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on

account of religion.” “[W]e have specifically held [in some contexts] . . . that article

I, section 11 is more protective of religious free exercise than the First Amendment

is.” Arlene’s Flowers, 193 Wn.2d at 527 (“‘[O]ur state constitutional and common

law history support a broader reading of article [I], section 11, than of the First

Amendment.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting First Covenant Church of

Seattle v. City of Seattle, 120 Wn.2d 203, 224, 840 P.2d 174 (1992))). SUGM did

-26-
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)

not provide an independent state constitutional analysis, and neither party addresses

what level of scrutiny should apply under article I, section 11. But even assuming

without deciding strict scrutiny applies, SUGM’s article I, section 11 argument fails.

Generally, “we have applied the same four-pronged analysis in an article I,

section 11 challenge: where a party has (1) a sincere religious belief and (2) the

exercise of that belief is substantially burdened by the challenged law, the law is

enforceable against that party only if it (3) serves a compelling government interest

and (4) is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.” Id. (citing City of

Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ, 166 Wn.2d 633, 642, 211 P.3d

406 (2009)).

I do not question whether SUGM based its employment decision on a sincere

religious belief that “‘[a]ll staff members are expected to live by a Biblical moral