McMahon v. World Vision Inc

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 AUBRY MCMAHON, CASE NO. C21-0920JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 WORLD VISION, INC., 13 Defendant. 14

15 Before the court is Defendant World Vision, Inc.’s (“World Vision”) motion for 16 reconsideration and/or clarification of the court’s July 24, 2023 order granting Plaintiff 17 Aubry McMahon’s motion for reconsideration. (Mot. (Dkt. # 46); see also 7/24/23 Order 18 (Dkt. # 44).) In its July 24, 2023 order, the court vacated the portion of its June 12, 2023 19 order in which it concluded that the Church Autonomy Doctrine barred Ms. McMahon’s 20 claims, granted World Vision’s motion for summary judgment, and denied Ms. 21 McMahon’s motion for partial summary judgment. (See 7/24/23 Order at 11; 6/12/23 22 Order (Dkt. # 38).) World Vision asks the court to reconsider its decision to vacate that 1 portion of its June 12, 2023 order, or alternatively, to clarify the issues that the parties 2 may raise in their renewed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See generally Mot. at

3 1, 8.) With respect to the clarification portion of its motion, World Vision contends that 4 the court should be permit it to argue its lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Church 5 Autonomy Doctrine affirmative defenses in its renewed motion.1 (Id. at 7-8.) 6 On August 8, 2023, the court denied the portion of World Vision’s motion in 7 which it requests reconsideration of the court’s July 24, 2023 order (id. at 1-7), ordered 8 Ms. McMahon to response to the clarification portion of World Vision’s motion (id. at

9 7-8), and deferred ruling on the clarification issue pending Ms. McMahon’s response. 10 (8/8/23 Order at 2.) Ms. McMahon timely responded to the clarification portion of World 11 Vision’s motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 48).) She requests that the court “issue an order 12 reiterating that (1) the [c]ourt has already rejected [World Vision’s] subject matter 13 jurisdiction and Church Autonomy Doctrine arguments, and (2) what remains for

14 decision are [World Vision’s] other affirmative defenses and the applicability, if any, of 15 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, 143 S. Ct. 2298 (2023).” (Id. at 4-5.) 16 // 17 1 In the clarification section, World Vision also argues that the parties should be 18 permitted to address the applicability of Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., __ U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1741 (2020) to this case. (Mot. at 8.) However, as Ms. McMahon correctly notes, this argument 19 is more appropriately considered a request for reconsideration of the court’s July 24, 2023 order, rather than a request for clarification of the scope of the renewed cross-motions for summary 20 judgment. (See Resp. at 1-2.) World Vision’s argument implies that the court erred by relying on Bostock to reject World Vision’s contention that its Biblical marriage standard of conduct “is not facially discriminatory because it targets conduct rather than protected traits.” (See 7/24/23 21 Order at 7; Mot. at 8 (contending that Bostock is limited to status rather than conduct).) Because the court has already denied reconsideration portion of World Vision’s motion (8/8/23 Order 22 (Dkt. # 47) at 2), it does not address this point any further in this order. 1 Being fully advised, the court rules on World Vision’s request for clarification as 2 follows. First, the court declines to allow World Vision to reargue the issue of subject

3 matter jurisdiction. The court rejected World Vision’s subject matter jurisdiction 4 argument in its June 12, 2023 summary judgment order. (6/12/23 Order at 13-14.) 5 World Vision never moved for reconsideration of that portion of the order (see generally 6 Dkt.; Mot. at 1-7 (not seeking reconsideration of that issue)), nor has it offered a 7 persuasive argument as to why it should be permitted to reargue the subject matter 8 jurisdiction issue in the renewed cross-motions for summary judgment (see Mot. at 8).

9 Second, the court declines to allow World Vision to continue to argue that the 10 Church Autonomy Doctrine precludes Ms. McMahon’s claims. The court’s July 24, 11 2023 order granting Ms. McMahon’s motion for reconsideration did not, as World Vision 12 contends, analyze “only the applicability of the Opara/[McDonnell Douglas]” 13 burden-shifting framework. (See Mot. at 1; 7/24/23 Order at 4-11.) Rather, the court’s

14 July 24, 2023 order held that: (1) World Vision rescinded Ms. McMahon’s job offer 15 pursuant to a facially discriminatory policy; (2) the Opara/McDonnell Douglas burden 16 shifting framework is inapplicable to Ms. McMahon’s claims because her job offer was 17 rescinded pursuant to a facially discriminatory policy; and (3) the Church Autonomy 18 Doctrine did not bar Ms. McMahon’s claims because the claims could be resolved using

19 neutral principles of law. (7/24/23 Order at 11; see id. at 4-11.) 20 Equally unavailing is World Vision’s argument that the court should allow it to 21 revisit the Church Autonomy Doctrine because “‘neutral principles’ . . . has not yet been 22 argued” and the court’s July 24, 2023 order did not address every one of the Church 1 Autonomy Doctrine cases cited in World Vision’s original summary judgment briefing 2 and motion for reconsideration. (Mot. at 7-8; see also Mot. at 1-7 (citing cases); Def.

3 MSJ (Dkt. # 26) at 22-23; Def. MSJ Reply (Dkt. #34) at 3-7; Def. MSJ Resp. (Dkt. # 32) 4 at 28-30.) The court has considered World Vision’s cited Church Autonomy Doctrine 5 cases at least three times: first, when it resolved the Church Autonomy Doctrine issue in 6 World Vision’s favor in its June 12, 2023 order; second, when it reversed course and 7 resolved the issue in Ms. McMahon's issue in deciding her motion for reconsideration; 8 and third, when it denied World Vision’s motion for reconsideration of the same. (See

9 6/12/23 Order at 15-25; 7/24/23 Order at 10-11; 8/8/23 Order at 2; see also Pl. MFR 10 (Dkt. # 40) at 2-6 (discussing the cases cited in the court’s June 12, 2023 order).) 11 Additionally, the parties have had ample opportunity to brief the issue of whether this 12 case could be decided based on neutral principles of law, and the court has already 13 rejected World Vision’s contentions that the neutral principles standard has not been met

14 or is inapplicable here.2 (See 8/8/23 Order at 2; 7/24/23 Order at 10-11.) 15 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the 16 clarification portion of World Vision’s motion (Dkt. # 46 at 7-8). Specifically, the court 17 rejects World Vision’s contentions that it should be permitted to reargue its lack of 18 subject matter and Church Autonomy Doctrine affirmative defenses in the renewed

19 cross-motions for summary judgment. In the parties’ renewed cross-motions for 20

2 The Ninth Circuit recently reaffirmed the application of the neutral principles of law 21 standard to the court’s consideration of a Church Autonomy Doctrine defense. Huntsman v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 21-56056, 2023 22 WL 5008207, at *4-5 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023). 1 summary judgment, the parties may address World Vision’s remaining affirmative 2 defenses3 and the impact, if any, of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in 303 Creative

3 LLC v. Elenis, __ U.S. __, 143 S. Ct. 2298 (2023) on those defenses. The court 4 ORDERS the parties to meet and confer and submit, by no later than August 21, 2023, a 5 joint statement setting forth a proposed briefing schedule for their renewed cross-motions 6 for summary judgment regarding World Vision’s affirmative defenses. The court will 7 enter a new trial schedule, if appropriate, after it rules on the parties’ renewed cross- 8 motions for summary judgment.

9 Dated this 14th day of August, 2023. 10 A 11 12 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3 The remaining affirmative defenses are World Vision’s religious organization 21 exemption, ministerial exception, Free Exercise clause, Expressive Association, and bona fide occupational qualification defenses. (See Def. MSJ (addressing each of these defenses); Def. 22 MSJ Reply (same).)