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

1,748 chars
In employment discrimination cases, the plaintiff has the initial burden of

proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed.

2d 668 (1973); Hollingsworth, 37 Wn. App. at 390; Ellingson v. Spokane Mortg.

Co., 19 Wn. App. 48, 54-55, 573 P.2d 389 (1978). “To establish a prima facie

case of disability discrimination, an aggrieved employee must show that she: (1)

has a disability; (2) can perform the essential functions of the job; and (3) was not

reasonably accommodated.”13 Dedman v. Pers. Appeals Bd., 98 Wn. App. 471,

478, 989 P.2d 1214 (1999) (citing Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 107 Wn.2d

563, 579, 731 P.2d 497 (1987), overruled on other grounds by Phillips v. City of

Seattle, 111 Wn.2d 903, 766 P.2d 1099 (1989); Dean v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle,

104 Wn.2d 627, 639, 708 P.2d 393 (1985)). “Once the plaintiff establishes a

prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.”

13 The parties do not dispute that Pope has a disability. Thus, we are concerned herein

only with whether there was evidence sufficient to establish a dispute of material fact regarding
whether Pope could perform the essential functions of her job and whether AHS provided her a
reasonable accommodation.

16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 79692-5-I/17

Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 446 (citing Grimwood v. Univ. of Puget Sound, Inc., 110

Wn.2d 355, 363-64, 753 P.2d 517 (1988), abrogated on other grounds by

Mikkelsen v Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Kittitas County, 189 Wn.2d 516, 404 P.3d