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
Original Source
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/796925.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,797 chars 
response that the Department of Labor and Industries would not permit Pope to

work given her condition.4 AHS did not permit Pope to return to work and did not

send Pope to any independent fitness for duty examinations.

SOCR and SOLS each investigated Pope’s allegations against AHS and

determined both that AHS did not accommodate Pope’s disability and that it

retaliated against her for making complaints related to her disability and wages.

The Seattle city attorney then filed a complaint with the City’s Office of Hearing

Examiner based on SOCR’s determination. Meanwhile, AHS appealed SOLS’s

determination to the City’s Office of Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner

consolidated the cases for hearing.

Subsequently, AHS filed a successful motion to dismiss all claims against

it on summary judgment. Thereafter, the City filed a petition for writ of review in

King County Superior Court pursuant to RCW 7.16.050. The superior court

issued the writ of review and then proceeded to reverse the hearing examiner’s

decision, concluding that disputed issues of material fact precluded summary

judgment.

AHS appeals. Our commissioner sought argument from the parties

addressing whether the superior court’s order was appealable as a matter of

right. The commissioner then referred the question to us.

4 There is no evidence in the record that the Department of Labor and Industries ever

required AHS to suspend Pope or to bar her from working.

5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 79692-5-I/6

II

Before reaching the merits, we must resolve the parties’ dispute regarding

whether AHS has a right to appeal from the superior court’s order reversing the

hearing examiner’s dismissal on summary judgment. AHS contends that the