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

1,741 chars
464 (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