OLYMPIA, Wash. (Legal Newsline) – Protection from lawsuits for religious institutions in an anti-discrimination law is OK, the Washington Supreme Court recently ruled, but a Seattle group is not free from litigation yet for refusing to hire a gay man for its open lawyer position.
The defendant in attorney Matthew Woods’ lawsuit, which had failed at the trial court level, might not qualify for the exception, a March 4 opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen that refused to strike down the state legislature’s work on the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
Religious nonprofits are not considered employers for the purposes of the WLAD and are therefore exempt from litigation. The decision in Woods’ case on the constitutionality of the exemption was in line with previous challenges.
“In addition, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the exemption for religious organizations from federal discrimination suits in order to avoid state interference with religious freedoms,” Madsen wrote.
Woods, a gay man suing Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, could still prove his case though. The story begins in 1999, when SUGM, an evangelical nonprofit, opened a legal aid clinic.
Woods volunteered at the clinic while a law student. He signed a statement of faith and in 2016 asked about a staff attorney position.
He told SUGM he was in a same-sex relationship – news that SUGM resisted by claiming it was contrary to biblical teaching. Woods applied for the position and did not get the job.
About a year later, he sued SUGM under the WLAD. He is arguing the religious exception doesn’t apply because working as an attorney is unrelated to SUGM’s religious practices.
The state Supreme Court was intrigued by the argument, ordering the trial court to decide if SUGM staff attorneys qualify as ministers. Previous decisions failed to address the issue directly.
“Further, neither SUGM nor (its legal aid service) is a church or religious entity principally responsible for the spiritual lives of its members,” Madsen wrote. “SUGM employees are expected to be active members of local churches; SUGM employment alone does not appear to be sufficient religious affiliation.”
The case inspired two other justices to pen their thoughts.
Justice Mary Yu concurred: “Our court’s decision today is not a carte blanche license to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ+ community who are employed by religious institutions. Rather it recognizes the statutory prohibitions against discrimination while also recognizing a limited and narrow ministerial exception required to alleviate a substantial and concrete burden on the free exercise of religious freedom.
Justice Debra Stephens dissented in part and concurred in part: “In my view, we should hold (the exemption) violates our state constitutional privileges and immunities clause because it favors religious nonprofits over all other employers without reasonable grounds for doing so. While both the state and federal constitutions afford protections for religious freedom, those protections extend to employers only in the narrow context of ministerial employment and do not provide reasonable grounds for the categorical exemption from WLAD liability.”