NO. ________ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SEATTLE’S UNION GOSPEL MISSION, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW S. WOODS, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NATHANIEL L. TAYLOR KRISTEN K. WAGGONER ABIGAIL J. ST. HILAIRE JOHN J. BURSCH ELLIS, LI & MCKINSTRY Counsel of Record PLLC RORY T. GRAY 1700 Seventh Ave., ALLIANCE DEFENDING Suite 1810 FREEDOM Seattle, WA 98101 440 First Street, N.W. (206) 682-0565 Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20001 (616) 450-4235 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission is a nonprofit that exists to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mission employees—all of whom must share and live out its beliefs—do so by meeting the needs of the homeless and evangelizing to them. One of the Mission’s many ministries is Open Door Legal Services, a legal clinic that assists those in Mission recovery programs and other vulnerable community members. Respondent Matthew Woods applied for an Open Door position with the stated intent of changing the Mission’s religious beliefs and without satisfying the prerequisites of regular church attendance, a pastor’s recommendation, and an explanation of his relationship with Jesus. Woods sued when the Mission hired a coreligionist instead. A state trial court ruled for the Mission, noting that it is exempt from state non-discrimination law. But the Washington Supreme Court held that exemp- tion violated the state constitution as-applied and declared the Mission’s First Amendment rights limi- ted to the ministerial exception, creating a split with six Courts of Appeals. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the First Amendment protects the Mission’s right to hire coreligionists. 2. Whether denying the Mission a total exemption the state grants to secular, small businesses violates the Free Exercise Clause. 3. Whether the Washington Supreme Court violated the Free Exercise Clause by showing at least a “slight suspicion” of hostility to religious beliefs in deleting a total exemption the legislature bestowed. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE Petitioner Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission is a Washington nonprofit organization, which the IRS places in the same tax-exempt category as a church. It has no parent corporation and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock. Respondent Matthew S. Woods is an individual and citizen of Washington. LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS Supreme Court of Washington, No. 96132-8, Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, judgment entered Mar. 4, 2021. Superior Court of King County, Washington, No. 17-2-29832-8, Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, judgment entered July 9, 2018. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE .............................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... ix DECISIONS BELOW................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................... 1 PERTINENT CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS ........................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 6 A. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission’s beliefs, work, and employment policies ....................... 6 B. The Mission’s legal services ministry and staff attorney position ..................................... 8 C. Woods’s application ......................................... 9 D. Lower court proceedings ............................... 10 iv REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............... 16 I. The United States has long protected religious nonprofits’ First Amendment autonomy to hire coreligionists................................................ 18 A. The Legislative Branch ................................. 18 B. The Executive Branch ................................... 20 C. The Judicial Branch ...................................... 22 II. The Washington Supreme Court’s rejection of the coreligionist doctrine creates a square 6-1 split. ..................................................................... 26 III.As rewritten by the Washington Supreme Court, Washington’s law violates the Free Exercise Clause by granting a broader exemption to secular, small businesses than it does to religious groups. ..................................... 30 IV. The Washington Supreme Court’s ruling shows substantial hostility towards the Mission’s religious beliefs and religious exemptions generally. ......................................... 32 V. This case is an ideal vehicle to resolve a conflict with dire ramifications for houses of worship and other religious nonprofits. ............. 37 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 40 v APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Washington Supreme Court En Banc Opinion March 4, 2021 ........................................................... 1a King County Superior Court Letter Order Granting Summary Judgment June 25, 2018 (CP169-72) ...................................... 61a King County Superior Court Order Granting Summary Judgment July 9, 2018 (CP173-75) ......................................... 68a Washington Supreme Court Order Granting Direct Review April 3, 2019 ........................................................... 71a 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 ................................................... 73a 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 ................................................... 73a 42 U.S.C. 12112(a) ................................................. 75a 42 U.S.C. 12113(d) ................................................. 75a Excerpts of RCW 49.60.040 ................................... 76a Excerpts of RCW 49.60.180 ................................... 76a Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Statement of Grounds for Direct Review Filed on August 8, 2018 ......................................... 77a vi Excerpts from Amended Brief of Appellant filed November 8, 2018 .......................................... 78a Excerpts from Brief of Respondent filed December 7, 2018 ........................................... 81a Excerpts from Reply Brief of Appellant filed February 5, 2019 ............................................ 87a Excerpts from Respondent’s Answer to Amicus Briefs of WELA, ACLU, and Center for Justice filed September 24, 2019 ....................................... 89a Complaint filed November 16, 2017 (CP1-7) ........ 96a Excerpts from Answer filed December 7, 2017 (CP15-16) ....................... 104a Stipulation of the Parties filed May 15, 2018 (CP 477-78) ........................... 106a Excerpts from Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed May 18, 2018 (CP58-62) .............................. 108a Declaration of Terry Pallas in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed May 18, 2018 (CP63-67) .............................. 113a Declaration of David Mace in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 26, 2018 (CP371-74) ............................. 119a vii Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 4, 2018 (CP93-97) ................................ 123a Declaration of Matt Woods in Support of Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (CP111-15) .......................................... 127a Excerpts from Deposition of Terry Pallas (CP695-709) .......................................................... 129a Excerpts from Deposition of David Mace (CP727-41; CP151-53) .......................................... 141a Articles of Incorporation for Union Gospel Mission Association of Seattle (Article I through III) (CP71-72) ......................... 150a Mission Website, About Us (CP77) ..................... 152a Mission Website, Statement of Faith (CP82) ...... 153a Excerpts from Association of Gospel Rescue Mission Webpage (CP454-56) .............................. 155a Excerpts from Mission’s Employee Handbook (CP350-64) ............................................................ 157a IRS Tax-Exempt Letter dated February 27, 1998 (CP231)........................ 163a IRS Tax-Exempt Letter dated April 24, 2003 (CP79-80) ........................... 166a viii Excerpts from Christian Legal Society Recommendations (CP380-90) ............................. 169a Email from Mace to ODLS Volunteers dated October 4, 2016 Regarding Job Vacancy (CP122) ................................................................. 174a Staff Attorney Position Description (CP401-03) ............................................................ 175a Emails between Baier and Woods dated October 2016 (CP124-25) ..................................... 181a Emails between Mace and Woods dated October 2016 (CP405) .......................................... 184a Woods’s Staff Attorney Application (CP131-33) ............................................................ 186a Woods’s Cover Letter (CP135) ............................. 195a Email from Mace to Woods dated November 9, 2016 (CP756) .................................. 197a Declaration of Alissa Baier in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 26, 2018 (CP321-323) ........................... 199a 50 State Survey of Religious Exemptions ........... 202a ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) .......................................... 24 Board of Jewish Education, 210 N.L.R.B. 1037 (1974)