In Bagal v. Sawant, (WD WA, March 8, 2024), a Washington federal district court rejected First and 14th Amendment challenges to the City of Seattle's adding of "caste" as a protected class under its anti-discrimination Ordinance. The court said in part:
First, Plaintiff argues that incorporating “caste” into existing anti-discrimination laws ipso facto creates a stigma, levelled towards a specific and insular minority group, namely members of the Hindu religion....
Plaintiff simply does not allege they are burdened, in any manner, from practicing their faith.... [H]aving failed to allege a cognizable injury, Plaintiff de facto lacks standing to assert a Free Exercise challenge to the Ordinance. Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is similarly unavailing.... Fundamentally, Plaintiff’s reasoning is that the City of Seattle’s involvement on an issue of equal importance to practitioners of a certain religion becomes, as a consequence, activity in favor or opposition to that religion. And that, because the City of Seattle opted to disfavor caste-based forms of discrimination, a fortiori it condemned all notions of caste as it was understood by any religion. But that logic proves too much. And even assuming, arguendo, that the Ordinance does condemn notions of caste as is believed by a certain religion, that does not constitute activity in support or disparagement of that religion. For instance, birth control is a topic that involves both religious beliefs and general welfare concerns. And yet, no court has ever held that government approval of birth control violates the Establishment Clause....
It is not enough, in other words, that the anti-caste legislation strikes members of a religion as reflecting poorly on their religious beliefs.... In this case, the Ordinance’s principal effect is not to endorse a religion, but simply to bolster local anti-discrimination laws. Any coincidental reference to a shared phenomenon (such as caste) is secondary, if not wholly, immaterial....
Second, Plaintiff contends that the Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause....
Nowhere does the text of the Ordinance make use of prohibited classifications. Rather, the Ordinance is facially neutral and of general applicability. Moreover, wholly absent from Plaintiff’s complaint are any facts suggesting that the legislative drafters were actually motivated by racial or ethnic animus.... Further to the point, Plaintiff’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the City of Seattle has applied the Ordinance in a discriminatory manner.
