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

Related Parts of This Source

1,797 chars

Suarez raises two more statutory claims asserting that the trial court erred in dismissing

her claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the WLAD. Appellant’s

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

Opening Br. at 14. The State argues that Suarez waived the statutory discrimination and

retaliation claims when she failed to assert them below. Br. of Resp’t at 19, 35. We

agree.

The general rule is that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for

the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5; Herberg v. Swartz, 89 Wn.2d 916, 925, 578 P.2d 17

(1978). More specifically, under RAP 9.12, “the appellate court will consider only

evidence and issues called to the attention of the trial court.” This rule aims to ensure

that an appellate court reviewing an order on summary judgment engages in the same

inquiry as the trial court. Wash. Fed’n of State Emps., Council 28 v. Office of Fin.

Mgmt., 121 Wn.2d 152, 157, 849 P.2d 1201 (1993).

Here, Suarez did not assert any argument or present evidence to support her

statutory claims of discrimination (disparate treatment) or retaliation to the superior court.

As such, she has waived these claims on appeal. Like the trial court, we will only review

Suarez’s claims of failure to accommodate under the statute and her tort claim of

discrimination in violation of public policy.

2. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE

The first issue preserved by Suarez is whether genuine issues of material fact

preclude the dismissal of her statutory claim for failing to accommodate her religious

beliefs. We review the trial court’s order on summary judgment de novo. Keck v.

Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358, 370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). Evidence is considered in a light