By Kasey Burton
The Washington Supreme Court held that the religious non-profit organization exemption set forth in the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s (WLAD) definition of “employer” does not violate the state privileges and immunities clause, and does not implicate the State’s establishment clause.
Larry Ockletree was a Security Guard at a religiously-affiliated hospital. After a stroke, he lost the function of his non-dominant arm, leading the Hospital to fire him. He believed his firing was premised on racial and disability discrimination and filed suit. However, the Hospital was not bound by the restrictions of WLAD as an Employer, because it was a religious non-profit organization. Mr. Ockletree challenged this exemption from WLAD, claiming that the exemption was a privilege granted to religious non-profit organizations over all other Employers. He also argued that treating religious Employers more favorably violated the Washington State Establishment Clause by providing financial assistance—and therefore support—to the organizations.
The Hospital countered by arguing that privileges are often narrowly construed so that “not every statute authorizing a particular class to do or obtain something involves a ‘privilege’ subject to article I, section 12.” It argued that privileges and immunities refer to fundamental rights conferred upon Washington citizens and that the exemption does not constitute government establishment of a religion.
The Court analyzed the broader impact of Mr. Ockletree’s arguments and determined that the legislature had granted no privilege or immunity, nor had it violated the Establishment Clause. Secular organizations bear no greater cost because religious non-profits are exempted. The exemption is focused on preventing government interference with religions and their practices, not to promote favoritism. The right to be free from discrimination is a right granted by the legislature, and therefore not fundamental, and the legislature is allowed to treat similarly situated businesses differently. Additionally, because the exemption does not involve public money or property, it does not violate the Establishment Clause. Indirect benefits to a religious organization do not violate the Washington constitution.
The statute plainly does not state that religious nonprofits can discriminate against employees on the bases listed. And religious nonprofits are arguably subject to federal antidiscrimination laws. It may be that Ockletree could find protection under federal law, but we leave that issue to the federal court to decide.
Editor’s Note [Jim Cline]: This case has widespread implications because it forecloses any and all WLAD state law claims against religious non-profit organizations. Consequently, a religious non-profit Employer can escape liability under State law even in situations involving rampant discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
