Last week, the Supreme Court turned down a very interesting case that has gotten comparatively little media coverage outside the Pacific Northwest, which is where it originated. It was Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission (UGM) and it’s an important milestone in allowing gay employees to be employed at evangelical Christian organizations.
I wish the high court had taken the case, as it would have gone a long way toward explaining if all employees at religious organizations are counted as “ministers,” or only the ones with spiritual-sounding titles.
It’s a battle that’s going to keep on being fought and I’m guessing that leaders at evangelical and Catholic groups are not taking the Court’s silence on this case as good news.
The Seattle Times’ account of the Court’s rejection is below, although I would’ve liked to have seen a more balanced headline than: “U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission’s anti-LGBTQ+ hiring policies case.” The kind of gives you an idea of where the article is going, doesn’t it?
Assuming the Times reporters did read some of the arguments from UGM, they would have known the subject was not just some anti-gay organization, but that UGM also had problems with this employee’s lack of clear Christian commitment.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced … that it will not review a case involving Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, which was sued in 2017 over its anti-LGBTQ+ hiring policy after it declined to hire a bisexual lawyer who applied for a job.
Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the decision not to hear the case at this stage. But according to The Associated Press, they said that “the day may soon come” when the court needs to confront the issue the case presents.
The Seattle-based Christian organization filed a petition in August 2021, asking the Supreme Court to decide a case in which the Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, attorney Matt Woods, in March 2021.
I covered this in December for Newsweek (of course it helps that I live driving distance from UGM’s headquarters), and believe me, UGM helps the folks who no one else wants to help.
Seattle is the country’s 13th largest city, but is fifth in terms of homeless on its streets. UGM has had a reputation for years for being out every night with its vans and free food and blankets for those on the city’s rainy streets.
Letting the Washington Supreme Court’s decision stand could potentially create a path for more LGBTQ+ employees to work for religious social service agencies in Washington state.
“Lately seeing all kinds of anti-trans bills passing around the country and protections for queer people being threatened,” Woods said, “it was a big relief to see today that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision protecting LGBTQ people from employment discrimination will not be challenged at the Supreme Court.”
Scrolling down the piece, one finds zero response from the other side. (See the above video for the mission’s side of the story). UGM — and its law firm — didn’t have an immediate response to the unfavorable (for them) ruling, but that’s no excuse for the reporters to not offer any reason why UGM put up such a big fight. There’s plenty of academics out there who could have weighed in on this case as to the implied threats to religious groups that do not wish to hire practicing gay employees.
Here at GetReligion, we call this journalism behavior “Kellerism,” after former New York Times editor Bill Keller, who famously said that when it comes to culture wars topics, there is only one side to the topic worth covering.
Here is the gist of the case from the Times:
The case started in 2017 when Woods sued the Union Gospel Mission when the nonprofit refused to hire him at its free legal aid clinic after he disclosed he was in a same-sex relationship. Prior to applying for a job with the Mission, Woods had volunteered there for years. The Mission, one of the largest homeless service providers in the Seattle area, argued that the state’s anti-discrimination law didn’t apply because it is a religious employer.
Woods’ suit claimed that the position doing front-line social services work in the organization’s legal aid clinic was protected by state anti-discrimination law. The Mission argued the opposite: that its legal aid work — which helps low-income and homeless clients with everything from getting IDs to dealing with court fines — was inseparable from its mission to preach the gospel.
So, if you’re a religious group, is your legal office part of your ministry?
The same could go for other employees: Kitchen help, cleaning staff, and others that may not be directly evangelizing those who come through the doors. UGM says that yes, every employee has to be on board with their mission.
Matt Woods would beg to differ. I tried interviewing him for the Newsweek piece but he wouldn’t respond and I had little luck with the QLaw Foundation in Seattle, which was representing him. Fortunately, a lawyer for Lambda Legal was quite helpful in presenting Woods’ side of the case.
As I’ve read coverage of this case, I’ve wondered if anyone has read the pleadings to understand why UGM did as they did. What I learned was that Matt Woods, a 20-something volunteer for UGM’s legal services branch since 2012, heard of a full-time opening in the law office and wanted to apply. As he talked with the head of legal services, he mentioned that he had a boyfriend and hoped to marry a man. On his application (all this is in the lawsuit), he said he hoped to change UGM’s view on same-sex relationships.
Not surprisingly, this set off alarms at UGM and the legal services director told him it was hopeless because of his same-sex dating status. He was also not a member of a church; a requirement for the position.
Woods had said he was familiar with UGM’s faith statement, which didn’t reference or forbid sexual behavior, but not its code of conduct, which sets out a no-sex-outside-of heterosexual-marriage policy. The fact that he felt compelled to tell the director that he was in a same-sex relationship makes you wonder if he was truly ignorant of this code of conduct. This man is a lawyer; it’s their job to know such things.
Angry to be cut out of a job, he sued and the case has dragged through the courts for close to five years.
It bought up truly interesting questions: With a religious employer, are all employees automatically “ministers?” Is every aspect of their work life “ministerial?” Is explicitly religious activity required of all employees?
So many fascinating questions to this case, but did anyone really ask them? Here is one more: What was the crucial difference between this case and the unanimous — repeat UNANIMOUS — 2012 Hosanna Tabor decision in which the court upheld the “ministerial exception” concept, allowing religious groups to take doctrine into account when hiring and firing employees?
Meanwhile, this story offers a predictable “anti-LBGTQ+” headline and shows a lack of effort when it comes to reporting both sides of the story. Note to groups with cases up before the Supreme Court: Have two responses (one for yes and the other for no) ready to go when the Supreme Court is poised on whether or not to take your case. The ADF eventually came up with a response to the Court’s denial of their case; basically to say they’re not giving up.
As for what UGM is going to do in the meantime and whether Matt Woods will reapply for a job there is something worth following. Here is an explanation of the legal issues behind this religious liberty issue. The case may be settled for now in Seattle, but religion beat reporters haven’t heard the end of this issue by a long shot. At some point, the Hosanna Tabor decision will come into play.
FIRST IMAGE: Union Gospel Mission sign photo by Julia Duin.