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
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
Full Text
1,725 chars[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the court must consider the facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Generally, administrative hearing bodies are authorized to summarily dispose of matters before them through a summary judgment procedure. On appeal, this court reviews de 11 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 79692-5-I/12 novo the materials submitted to the Hearing Examiner by both parties. (Citations omitted.) The superior court considered the evidence in the record as it was presented to the hearing examiner and concluded that there were material facts in dispute that precluded summary judgment. As in Coballes, the superior court’s review did not exceed the authority it would have had in a direct appeal and we therefore treat the superior court’s review as such a direct appeal. 167 Wn. App. at 868. Therefore, AHS may appeal from the superior court’s order as a matter of right. III Having concluded that AHS has a right to appeal from the superior court’s order, we now address AHS’s contention that the superior court erred when it reversed the hearing examiner’s summary judgment order dismissing the City’s claims. This is so, AHS appears to assert, because there was no evidence presented to show that Pope could perform the essential elements of her job, that Pope ever requested a reasonable accommodation from AHS, that AHS did not accommodate Pope, and that AHS retaliated against Pope when she filed