Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/383814_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,764 chars

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE

ADELINA GABRIELA SUAREZ, )
) No. 38381-4-III
Appellant, )
)
v. )
)
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) PUBLISHED OPINION
TAMMY WINEGAR and her community )
property, JULIANNE MOORE and her )
community property, and TAMMY )
MASTERS and her community property, )
)
Respondents. )

STAAB, J. — Adelina Suarez sued her former employer, Yakima Valley School

(School), alleging the School failed to accommodate her religious beliefs and practices in

violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), ch. 49.60 RCW, and

terminated her employment in violation of public policy. Suarez contends that her work

schedule conflicted with her practice of observing a weekly Sabbath and several religious

festivals throughout the year. She contends that when she told the School about this

conflict, the School failed to accommodate her beliefs and practices, and when she failed

to report to work while exercising her beliefs, the School terminated her employment.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

She appeals the superior court’s order on summary judgment dismissing all of her claims

against the School.

We reverse summary judgment dismissal of Suarez’s statutory claim for failure to

accommodate her religious beliefs and her tort claim for discrimination in violation of

public policy. We hold that a “reasonable accommodation” is one that resolves the

conflict between an employee’s religious beliefs and their work duty without adverse

impact on their job benefits or status. While an employer is excused from providing an

accommodation that will cause undue hardship, for purposes of this case, we adopt the