USA – WASHINGTON Trends and Developments Contributed by: Alexander A Baehr and Molly Gibbons, Summit Law Group
In Groff v DeJoy, 600 US 447 (2023) (“Groff”), however, the US Supreme Court held that a “more than a de minimis cost” is not enough to establish undue hardship in a religious accom- modation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Instead, the US Supreme Court held that “undue hardship is shown when a burden is sub- stantial in the overall context of an employer’s business”. It went on to say that courts should consider whether “the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business”, taking into account “all rel- evant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of [an] employer.” For more than a year, the Washington State Supreme Court was silent as to whether Groff’s substantial burdens test also applies to an undue hardship defence asserted in response to a religious discrimination claim under the WLAD. However, in July 2024, the Washington State Supreme Court confirmed in Suarez v State, 552 P.3d 786 (Wash 2024) that a court considering an undue hardship defence asserted in response to a claim for failure to accommodate religious beliefs under the WLAD must apply the substan- tial burdens standard articulated in Groff. As such, employers in Washington state should evaluate potential costs of accommodations under Groff’s substantial burdens test before making decisions regarding such requests. In making such a determination, employers can consider ‒ among other things ‒ direct mone- tary costs and non-economic burdens that the proposed accommodation would place on the employer’s operations and co-workers.
Expansion of Washington state’s Paid Sick Leave Law Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 5793 was signed into law by Washington state governor Jay Inslee on 28 March 2024 and takes effect on 1 January 2025. SSB 5793 amends Washington state’s Paid Sick Leave Law (RCW 49.46.210) by expanding the definitions of an employee’s “family member” and the circumstances in which paid sick leave can be used, as follows. • An employee can now take paid sick leave when the employee’s place of business, or the employee’s child’s school or care centre, have been closed for a health-related reason “or after the declaration of an emergency” by the local, state or federal government. • The definition of family member now includes “any individual who regularly resides in the employee’s home or where the relationship creates an expectation that the employee care for the person, and that individual depends on the employee for care.” • The definition of “child”, which falls within the definition of “family member”, now includes “a child’s spouse”. Employers should review and update their poli- cies and procedures to reflect the new reasons for leave, as well as the expanded definition of “family member”, so as to provide clarity for employees and ensure compliance with state law. Jury selection perspective Washington is one of the few states that has a court rule intended to eliminate racial bias in jury selection. General Rule 37, which took effect in 2018, modifies the three-part test set forth in Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986) for evalu- ating the constitutionality of a peremptory strike and prohibits peremptory challenges based on
1513 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook