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

1,789 chars

Wn.2d at 916 (citing Alpine Lakes, 102 Wn. App. at 14).

“We evaluate the facts in the administrative record de novo.” Verizon Nw.,

Inc., 164 Wn.2d at 916; see also RCW 34.05.558 (“Judicial review of disputed

issues of fact shall be conducted by the court without a jury and must be confined

to the agency record for judicial review.”). We review an agency’s legal

determinations under an “error of law” standard, see RCW 34.05.570(3)(d),

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 79692-5-I/14

which permits reviewing courts to substitute their view of the law for that of the

agency. Verizon Nw., Inc., 164 Wn.2d at 915 (citing Haley, 117 Wn.2d at 728).

Summary judgment for an employer will seldom be appropriate in employment

discrimination cases “because of the difficulty of proving a discriminatory

motivation.” Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439, 445, 334 P.3d 541 (2014).

AHS contends that the hearing examiner’s dismissal order herein was

proper because there were no disputed issues of material fact regarding whether

it had violated provisions of chapter 14.04 SMC because (1) the City failed to

provide a prima facie showing of discrimination in violation of chapter 14.04

SMC, (2) AHS established a complete defense to any discrimination claims

under SMC 14.04.050(D), and (3) no evidence was submitted to prove that

Pope’s suspension was retaliation for requesting an accommodation or filing

complaints with the City. This is so, AHS asserts, because there was no dispute

that Pope was unable to perform the essential functions of her job as defined by

AHS, that she never requested a reasonable accommodation because she did

not provide medical proof of her disability, and because her suspension was not