FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON IN CLERK’S OFFICE MARCH 4, 2021 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON MARCH 4, 2021 SUSAN L. CARLSON SUPREME COURT CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON MATTHEW S. WOODS, an individual, ) ) No. 96132-8 Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) En Banc SEATTLE’S UNION GOSPEL MISSION, ) a Washington nonprofit, ) ) Respondent. ) Filed: March 4, 2021 _______________________________________) MADSEN, J.—We begin with the proposition that the legislature is entitled to legislate. WASH. CONST. art. II, § 1. It is entitled to make distinctions and to carve out exceptions in its assessments of proper public policy, within the constraints of the state and federal constitutions. See, e.g., WASH. CONST. art. I, § 12. One constraint on legislative power is that it may not treat differently persons who are similarly situated unless a rational basis exists to do so and that it may not give persons immunity or No. 96132-8 privilege without a reasonable basis when a fundamental right is at stake. Id.; U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. The issue in this case is whether the legislature extended a privilege or immunity to religious and other nonprofit, secular employers and whether, in providing the privilege or immunity, the legislature affected a fundamental right without a reasonable basis for doing so. Lawmakers enacted Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), ch. 49.60 RCW, to protect citizens from discrimination in employment, and exempts religious nonprofits from the definition of “employer.” RCW 49.60.040(11). In enacting WLAD, the legislature created a statutory right for employees to be free from discrimination in the workplace while allowing employers to retain their constitutional right, as constrained by state and federal case law, to choose workers who reflect the employers’ beliefs when hiring ministers. Consequently, we must balance under law these competing interests, and we look to both our state and federal constitutions for guidance—specifically article I, section 12; article I, section 11; the First Amendment; and, the United States Supreme Court decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2049, 207 L. Ed. 2d 870 (2020). Here, Matthew Woods brought an employment discrimination action against Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (SUGM). At trial, SUGM successfully moved for summary judgment pursuant to RCW 49.60.040(11)’s religious employer exemption. Woods appealed to this court, contesting the constitutionality of the statute. SUGM now argues that RCW 49.60.040(11)’s exemption applies to its hiring decisions because its employees are expected to minister to their clients. Under Our Lady of Guadalupe, a 2 No. 96132-8 plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim must yield in a few limited circumstances, including where the employee in question is a minister. Whether ministerial responsibilities and functions discussed in Our Lady of Guadalupe are present in Woods’ case was not decided below. For the following reasons, we hold that RCW 49.60.040(11) does not violate article I, section 12 on its face but may be constitutionally invalid as applied to Woods. Accordingly, we reverse and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals