Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,755 chars
AHS did not initially provide any response to Pope’s notice of her memory

troubles and did not do anything to assist her with the telephone system. Weeks

later, a supervisor began calling Pope to remind her to use the telephone system

at the beginning and end of her shifts, but this only happened a few times.

In June 2015, a month after she had raised her medical issues with AHS,

Pope filed a complaint with the Seattle Office of Civil Rights (SOCR) alleging that

AHS did not accommodate her disability. Subsequently, the Seattle Office of

Labor Standards (SOLS) filed a minimum wage and administrative wage theft

charge against AHS.

AHS learned of the accommodation complaint and the administrative

wage theft charge in early July 2015. Shortly after learning of Pope’s complaints,

AHS wrote to Pope’s medical provider demanding that she provide an

assessment of whether Pope was capable of performing the duties of a care

provider and complaining that Pope was unable to accurately use the telephone

clock in system and was forgetful. Pope’s medical provider responded by

informing AHS that she was not qualified to make such a vocational assessment.

AHS did not engage in any further efforts to ascertain whether Pope was

3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 79692-5-I/4

medically fit for work.

The following week, AHS began assisting Pope with clocking in using the

telephone system by instructing her to set reminder alarms on her own telephone

and by calling her, although they did not do so every time Pope was required to

clock in or out. Then, only one week later, AHS informed Pope that her client

had complained that Pope had not come to work as scheduled on July 16 and