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
1,741 chars464 (2017)). If the employer meets this burden, then the employee must “‘produce sufficient evidence that [the employer’s] alleged nondiscriminatory reason for [the employment action] was a pretext.’” Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 446 (second alteration in original) (quoting Hume v. Am. Disposal Co., 124 Wn.2d 656, 667, 880 P.2d 988 (1994)). “Evidence is sufficient to overcome summary judgment if it creates a genuine issue of material fact that the employer’s articulated reason was a pretext for a discriminatory purpose.” Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 446 (citing Hume, 124 Wn.2d at 668). In determining whether job functions are essential, Washington courts have utilized criteria suggested by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: (1) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (2) written job descriptions; (3) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (4) the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function; (5) the terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (6) the work experience of past employees in the job; and (7) the current work experience of employees in similar jobs. Dedman, 98 Wn. App. at 479 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). To determine whether an employee with a disability qualifies for a reasonable accommodation, SMC 14.04.030(C) requires that an impairment14 14 An impairment is defined as including: 1. Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), 17 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 79692-5-I/18