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

1,725 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