481 P.3d 1060
Wash.2021Background
- Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (SUGM), an evangelical nonprofit, operates Open Door Legal Services (ODLS), a legal-aid clinic described as a ministry.
- Matthew Woods, a lawyer who volunteered at ODLS, applied for a staff attorney position and disclosed he was in a same-sex relationship; SUGM refused to hire him under its employee code forbidding "homosexual behavior."
- Woods sued under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD); SUGM invoked RCW 49.60.040(11), which excludes religious nonprofits from WLAD’s definition of "employer."
- The trial court granted summary judgment for SUGM under the statutory exemption; Woods appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.
- The Washington Supreme Court held the exemption is not facially invalid under Wash. Const. art. I, § 12 but may be unconstitutional as applied to Woods and remanded for the trial court to decide whether the federal "ministerial exception" bars Woods’s WLAD claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial validity of RCW 49.60.040(11) under Wash. Const. art. I, § 12 (privileges & immunities) | Woods: categorical exemption unlawfully grants privilege/immunity to religious nonprofits and burdens fundamental rights (sexual orientation/marriage). | SUGM: legislature may treat religious nonprofits differently to protect religious freedom; exemption reasonable. | Statute not facially invalid; exemption survives broad challenge. |
| As-applied challenge under art. I, § 12 | Woods: applying the exemption to his nonministerial staff-attorney role violates his fundamental rights and lacks reasonable grounds. | SUGM: hiring decisions are tied to ministry; staff attorneys serve ministerial functions. | As-applied validity unresolved; may be unconstitutional as applied to Woods. Case remanded. |
| Scope of ministerial exception (First Amendment) — whether staff attorneys qualify | Woods: ODLS attorneys perform secular legal duties; ministerial exception should not apply. | SUGM: all employees minister; staff attorneys expected to evangelize and further mission. | Court adopts federal ministerial-exception framework (Hosanna-Tabor / Our Lady of Guadalupe): inquiry focuses on actual functions; trial court must determine if staff attorneys are ministers. |
| Free exercise / art. I, § 11 challenge | Woods: N/A (plaintiff). | SUGM: applying WLAD violates free exercise and state religious-freedom protections. | Court: WLAD is a neutral law generally applicable; free-exercise protection yields only in the narrow ministerial-exception context — broad free-exercise claim fails on this posture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (U.S. 2020) (clarified ministerial-exception inquiry and emphasized evaluating what an employee actually does)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, 565 U.S. 171 (U.S. 2012) (recognized ministerial exception under the Religion Clauses)
- Ockletree v. Franciscan Health Sys., 179 Wn.2d 769 (Wash. 2014) (addressed facial challenge to WLAD’s religious-employer exemption)
- Arlene’s Flowers, Inc. v. State, 193 Wn.2d 469 (Wash. 2019) (held WLAD survives strict scrutiny in an article I, § 11 challenge in the public-accommodations context)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (recognized liberty in intimate same-sex conduct)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2015) (recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right)
- Farnam v. CRISTA Ministries, 116 Wn.2d 659 (Wash. 1991) (interpreted WLAD to categorically exempt religious nonprofits)