吃瓜大本营

In November 2020, Aubry McMahon applied for an administrative position with World Vision Inc., a religiously affiliated nonprofit that provides humanitarian aid to combat poverty and hunger. In January 2021, World Vision extended a job offer to Aubry. Upon learning that Aubry is a woman married to a person of the same sex, World Vision rescinded its offer. World Vision argued that Aubry was ineligible for the position because she could not comply with its Standard of Conduct鈥攁 facially discriminatory policy that prohibits World Vision employees from engaging in 鈥渟exual conduct outside the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.鈥�

In July 2021, Aubry filed suit alleging that World Vision unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and marital status in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (鈥淲LAD鈥�). In November 2023, the district court ruled in Aubry鈥檚 favor and held that World Vision violated Title VII and the WLAD when it rescinded her job offer because she is a woman married to a person of the same sex. The court also rejected World Vision鈥檚 affirmative defenses鈥攊ncluding Title VII鈥檚 religious employer exemption, the First Amendment鈥檚 ministerial exception, and the freedom of association.

Our amicus brief argues that the district court properly found that World Vision violated Title VII and the WLAD when it rescinded Aubry鈥檚 employment offer because she is in a same-sex marriage. Specifically, we address five points. First, the district court correctly found that Title VII only shields religious organizations from liability for religious discrimination claims, not all claims of discrimination. Second, the district court properly held that the WLAD鈥檚 religious organization exemption only applies where the employee is a minister鈥攚hich Aubry was not. Third, World Vision鈥檚 church autonomy argument, if accepted, would allow religious organizations to discriminate against their employees for any reason, bypassing Title VII liability. Fourth, the district court properly held that World Vision does not have an expressive association right to discriminate against non-ministerial employees based on sex. Fifth, accepting World Vision鈥檚 affirmative defenses could gut Title VII and local civil rights protections for LGBTQ people employed by religious institutions. It would also pave the way for religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of other protected characteristics like race, color, and national origin.