Opinion ID: 2819793
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Individualized Exemptions

Text: Plaintiffs also contend that the rules are not generally applicable because they contain discretionary text that allows those who enforce the rules to discriminate against religion. The “individualized exemptions” doctrine, which Plaintiffs 30 STORMANS, INC. V. WIESMAN thus invoke, was developed in a series of cases involving unemployment benefits programs under which persons were ineligible for benefits if they failed to accept available employment “without good cause.” See Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717–18 (1981) (finding unconstitutional the denial of unemployment benefits when the state determined that the claimant’s religiously motivated voluntary termination of his employment in the production of armaments was “without good cause”); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402–10 (1963) (finding unconstitutional a state’s denial of unemployment benefits when the state determined that the claimant’s religiously motivated refusal to work on Saturday was “without good cause”); see also Hobbie v. Unemp’t Appeals Comm’n, 480 U.S. 136, 140–46 (1987) (finding unconstitutional a state’s denial of benefits to a claimant whose employment was terminated because she refused to work on Saturday, as was required by her religion). The Court opined that an openended, purely discretionary standard like “without good cause” easily could allow discrimination against religious practices or beliefs. Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 406; see also Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 537–38 (holding that the city’s determination that Santeria animal sacrifice was “unnecessary”—and thus in violation of the ordinance at issue—“devalue[d] religious reasons for killing by judging them to be of lesser import than nonreligious reasons,” meaning that “religious practice [was] being singled out for discriminatory treatment”). But the Court has limited that doctrine. In Smith, the Court refused to extend that reasoning to a criminal prohibition on the use of peyote that could disqualify a violator from receiving state unemployment benefits. 494 U.S. at 882–85; see id. at 884 (noting that the reasoning STORMANS, INC. V. WIESMAN 31 of Sherbert, Thomas, and Hobbie had “nothing to do with an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct”). The Court explained that the individual exemption test was “developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct.” Id. at 884. Here, Plaintiffs point to two phrases in support of their argument that the Delivery Rule contains discretionary text: “substantially similar” (located in the Delivery Rule’s introduction) and “good faith compliance” (located in the Delivery Rule’s fifth exemption). We conclude, however, that the rules do not afford unfettered discretion that could lead to religious discrimination because the provisions are tied to particularized, objective criteria. The introduction to the list in the Delivery Rule allows exemptions in circumstances that are “substantially similar” to those in the five enumerated exemptions in section 246869-010(1) of the Washington Administrative Code. Thus, the introductory text is tethered directly to those five business-related exemption categories. The fifth exemption is broader than the other four in that it requires “good faith compliance” with the Stocking Rule. Wash. Admin. Code § 246-869-010(1)(e). Similarly, though, that exemption ties directly to the objective standard of meeting patients’ needs by providing a representative assortment of drugs, as is required by the Stocking Rule. And, again, we note that Plaintiffs do not challenge the Stocking Rule. As mentioned previously, Plaintiffs’ reliance on evidence of individual Commission members’ opinions does not 32 STORMANS, INC. V. WIESMAN support the conclusion that the exemptions will be interpreted broadly to permit discriminatory treatment of religion or religiously motivated conduct. The Commission collectively has never issued commentary supporting such a broad interpretation. To the extent that the Commission has made official comments, those comments contradict Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Commission would allow exemptions except for religious reasons; for instance, the Commission has stated that pharmacies may not object to delivering drugs because the drugs are too expensive. The mere existence of an exemption that affords some minimal governmental discretion does not destroy a law’s general applicability. See Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 651 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Consistent with the majority of our sister circuits, . . . we have already refused to interpret Smith as standing for the proposition that a secular exemption automatically creates a claim for a religious exemption.”). As the Third Circuit explained in Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch: What makes a system of individualized exemptions suspicious is the possibility that certain violations may be condoned when they occur for secular reasons but not when they occur for religious reasons. In Blackhawk[ v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202, 211 (3d Cir. 2004)], it was not the mere existence of an exemption procedure that gave us pause but rather the fact that the Commonwealth could not coherently explain what, other than the religious motivation of [the prohibited] STORMANS, INC. V. WIESMAN 33 conduct, justified the unavailability of an exemption. 510 F.3d 253, 276 (3d Cir. 2007); cf. Grace United Methodist Church, 451 F.3d at 651 (“Indeed, in the land use context, the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have rejected a per se approach and instead apply a fact-specific inquiry to determine whether the regulation at issue was motivated by discriminatory animus, or whether the facts support an argument that the challenged rule is applied in a discriminatory fashion that disadvantages religious groups or organizations.”). In summary, because the exemptions at issue are tied directly to limited, particularized, businessrelated, objective criteria, they do not create a regime of unfettered discretion that would permit discriminatory treatment of religion or religiously motivated conduct.8