Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals furthered a trend of ruling favorably for religious organization employers in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Brown. In a case specific to Washington, the Ninth Circuit interpreted how the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60, applies to religious organizations who are employers. The Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction that prohibits Washington from enforcing WLAD against Union Gospel Mission of Yakima related to its stated preference for hiring applicants that share and affirm its religious beliefs. For employers in the Ninth Circuit who are religious organizations, the ruling provides important guidance but also supports key considerations as they navigate their hiring practices in the current legal landscape.
Case Background: Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Brown
Union Gospel is a Christian organization with the stated goals of “following Christ” by “helping people move from homelessness to wholeness.” The Court described Union Gospel’s focus as operating homeless shelters, recovery programs, and clinics, and providing meal services, with its religious mission permeating all its activities. Union Gospel requires its employees to agree with and live out its Christian beliefs, including abstaining from sexual relations outside of marriage between a woman and a man. During the hiring process, Union Gospel makes this mission and attendant requirements explicit to applicants and requires compliance with a “statement of faith, core values, and job duties and requirements.” Union Gospel seeks to hire exclusively individuals of its own faith, believing members of its faith will best advance its religious mission.
Interpretation of Washington Law Against Discrimination
WLAD prohibits employers from discriminating in the hiring process based on several protected classes, including sexual orientation. While WLAD exempts religious organizations from the definition of “employer,” Washington’s Supreme Court narrowly interpreted this exemption in 2021 in Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission and limited it to when employers hire for ministerial positions. Union Gospel preemptively brought an action to prevent enforcement of WLAD as it planned to hire for some non-ministerial positions, i.e., an IT technician and operations assistant. Union Gospel sought to ensure that if it favored individuals within its own faith who affirmatively agreed to adhere to and follow the tenets of the faith in their personal lives, it would not be subject to investigations or complaints by the state. The District Court ultimately entered a preliminary injunction that enjoined the State of Washington from enforcing WLAD against Union Gospel related to its religious preferences in hiring, and the State appealed.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction, finding that the church autonomy doctrine prevented Washington from enforcing WLAD against Union Gospel when its hiring practices were based on sincerely held religious beliefs and central to its mission. The church autonomy doctrine is rooted in the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Under the church autonomy doctrine, the government may not interfere with the internal management decisions of a religious institution. The Ninth Circuit explained that hiring practices of a religious institution, when made to advance a religious mission, are internal management decisions and therefore protected. The church autonomy doctrine requires the religious institution to root its decision-making in religious beliefs; a court will not question the veracity of these views.
How the Union Gospel Decision Aligns with Recent Ninth Circuit Rulings
This ruling is unique to Washington because of the Washington Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of the definition of “employer” in the state statute exempting religious organizations from WLAD. What Union Gospel sought to enjoin was already protected on the federal level in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. California, Oregon, and Idaho laws similarly exempt religious organizations from employment laws that prohibit religious discrimination.
Notwithstanding the limited application of this case to Washington law, the ruling is the third in as many years from the Ninth Circuit recognizing a notable measure of freedom for religious organizations in their employment practices. In two similar earlier rulings, the Ninth Circuit examined the related concept of the ministerial exception. More narrowly applied, but more expansively interpreted in its immunization from employment-discrimination laws, the ministerial exception—also rooted in the religion clauses of the First Amendment—allows an employer a significant amount of freedom in employment decisions as to employees who qualify as “ministers” (which definition is not limited to ordained individuals). In 2024, the Ninth Circuit made clear in Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America that once a recognized religious organization establishes a position fits within the definition of minister, the employer does not need to provide a religious justification for its decision-making to invoke the ministerial exception. On the heels of Markel, in 2025, in McMahon v. World Vision, the Ninth Circuit expansively defined “minister” to include a customer service representative tasked with “vital religious functions” within the core of World Vision’s mission. Union Gospel, although reasoned based on the church autonomy doctrine, continues the Ninth Circuit’s trend of expansively interpreting the autonomy of religious institutions in their employment practices for certain positions, particularly, when based on a religious reason.
Key Takeaways and Considerations for Religious Organizations
As this area of law continues to develop, religious institutions should be mindful of the impact of key rulings like this one, along with other considerations, as they make decisions around hiring practices.
The Job Duties of a Position Matter
If a position is deemed a “minister,” religious employers enjoy a greater measure of insulation in employment decisions and do not need to articulate a religious reason for many employment decisions under the ministerial exception. That conclusion of whether a position is ministerial, though, can be a complex analysis, based on a variety of factors that extend beyond a written position description.
If a religious employer seeks to limit its hiring in non-ministerial positions to members of its own faith, the church autonomy doctrine protects only hiring decisions based on sincerely held religious reasons for such limitation of the applicant pool.
Exposure to Other Employment Liability Remains
Neither the church autonomy doctrine nor the ministerial exemption completely insulates a religious employer from liability related to its employment practices. Importantly, the protections set out in the Union Gospel decision related to hiring practices and preferences for non-ministerial positions are narrower than those protections provided by the ministerial exception. While the church autonomy doctrine provides protections for hiring decisions made on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs, a religious employer cannot discriminate on any other ground or protected status.
Religious employers who apply a religious preference to non-ministerial positions may find themselves defending more claims. Each employment case is a fact-specific analysis, and preferring a less qualified applicant over another may call into question factors other than religion (e.g., race, gender) as a basis for a claim for discrimination. Religion cannot be a pretext for discrimination on other, unlawful bases.
The Ninth Circuit in Union Gospel cautioned that its ruling did not consider other entities run by religious institutions including businesses and hospitals. Notably, schools, colleges, and universities were not listed in this carved-out list. As a result, the full impact of the application of the ruling remains undetermined.
Deciding to Invoke Religious Autonomy Defenses
A religious organization’s decision to invoke the church autonomy doctrine or ministerial exception is significant. There are a variety of factors, including ones outside of the legal realm, that may inform a religious organization’s decision to pursue a particular approach or relatedly, a legal defense.
Like many employment decisions, the issues raised in Union Gospel present important considerations and questions for employers. We are here to partner with you as you navigate them.
The legal issues impacting this topic are and will continue to be ever-changing (Employment Law in Motion!), and since publication of this blog post, new or additional information not referenced in this blog post may be available.
This article is provided for informational purposes only—it does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the reader. Readers should consult legal counsel before taking action relating to the subject matter of this article.
