By David Worley
In Ockletree v. Franciscan Health Systems, 27 AD Cases 442 (W.D. Wash. 2012), a Washington federal district court refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s ADA claims against a religious hospital when the discriminatory action was not religiously motivated. Whether the religious exemption under the Washington Law against Discrimination (WLAD) applied to non-religious based discriminatory firings by religious institutions is currently an unanswered question in Washington. Although there was no actual record that the claims had been timely filed, the SOL may have been longer if the WLAD did apply to this claim, so dismissal for untimely firing could not be decided at this point. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s discharge in violation of public policy claim, holding that the statutory remedies were sufficient and therefore precluded a common-law claim.
The plaintiff, a former hospital security guard, suffered a stroke which left him with limited use of his left arm. The hospital eventually terminated his employment based on this, and also, allegedly, because of his race. With only the federal remedy, the filing deadline was 180 days after the discrimination. With both a state and federal remedy, the deadline is extended to 300 days. Ockletree stated that he filed a claim immediately, but it was never received by the EEOC. The claim that was received was filed 189 days after the discrimination.
The court stated that equitable considerations would allow the claim to proceed, as the court could not say as a matter of law that Ockletree did not file the first claim in a timely manner. Further, because the claim could possibly also be pursued under the WLAD by a local agency, the filing deadline might be 300 days, making it timely.
The crux of the issue was whether the defendant religious institution was exempted from the claim solely on the basis of its religious status or whether the discrimination had to be religiously motivated to allow the exemption. The court noted that this was clearly unsettled law in Washington, and all courts facing similar issues had managed to avoid producing an applicable ruling.
The discrimination Ockletree claims (race and disability) is wholly unrelated to FHS’ religious purpose, practice, or activity. It is not clear to this Court that WLAD’s broad exemption is constitutional, at least in this context. Accordingly, this Court has certified this question to the Washington Supreme Court.
Finally, the court dismissed the claim of Discharge in Violation of Public policy, stating, “Because this public interest against discrimination is adequately protected by federal statutes,” the common law claim cannot survive.
