 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Tacoma v. Franciscan Foundation3/5/1999
The City of Tacoma (City) appeals a trial court order granting summary Judgement in favor of St. Joseph Medical Center (St. Joesph). The trial court ruled that the City's anti-discrimination ordinance conflicts with state law and thus is unenforceable against religious nonprofit organizations. We agree and affirm.
FACTS
The facts are undisputed. St. Joseph is a hospital owned and operated by the Franciscan Health System-West, which is in turn owned and operated by Catholic Health Initiatives. All three entities are religious nonprofit organizations. In fall 1997, two St. Joseph's employees filed separate charges with the Tacoma Human Rights Department alleging religious, disability, race, and national origin discrimination under chapter 1.29 of the Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC). St. Joseph challenged the City's jurisdiction to enforce its ordinance against it because St. Joseph is exempt from the state anti-discrimination law.
On December 5, 1997, the City filed a declaratory Judgement action in superior court. Both parties moved for summary Judgement. The trial court granted St. Joseph's motion and entered a Judgement ruling that: (1) the Tacoma Human Rights Department does not have authority under TMC 1.29 to investigate claims of discrimination, make findings, and/or enforce civil penalties against St. Joseph because St. Joseph is expressly exempted from coverage of the state anti-discrimination law; (2) the City's definition of "employer" conflicts with the state definition of "employer" as to religious nonprofit organizations; (3) RCW 49.60.330 prohibits municipalities from enforcing anti-discrimination ordinances in a manner inconsistent with RCW 49.60; and (4) it is inconsistent with RCW 49.60 for the City to enforce its anti-discrimination ordinance against exempt religious organizations such as St. Joseph. The City appeals.
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review and Burden of Proof
The parties agree that review of this case is de novo, but disagree as to St. Joseph's burden of proof in challenging the City's ordinance. The City argues that St. Joseph bears the heavy burden of proving the ordinance unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. See Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wn.2d 278, 287, 957 P.2d 621 (1998) (ordinance is presumed constitutional; heavy burden rests on challenger to establish unconstitutionality); City of Seattle v. Shin, 50 Wn. App. 218, 220, 748 P.2d 643 (party challenging constitutionality of ordinance must establish unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt), review denied, 110 Wn.2d 1025 (1988). St. Joseph counters it merely must show that the City's attempt to enforce its ordinance against St. Joseph exceeds its statutory grant of enforcement authority.
The Anti-discrimination Laws
Washington's Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60, permits injured persons to bring a civil action for employment discrimination. RCW 49.60.010, .030(2). Its definition of "employer" "includes any person acting in the interest of an employer . . . who employs eight or more persons, and does not include any religious or sectarian organization not organized for private profit." RCW 49.60.040(3). The law permits first-class cities to enact their own anti-discrimination ordinances and provide administrative remedies, as long as such ordinances and remedies are consistent with state law. RCW 49.60.330.
The Tacoma City Municipal Code contains an anti-discrimination ordinance that defines "employer" as "any person . . . acting in the interests of an employer . . . or who has any persons in his, her or its employ." TMC 1.29.030(E). Thus, it includes religiou
Page 1 2 3 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|