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
1,765 chars15 This test applies to all types of retaliation claims in the employment context, and so because the prohibition against retaliation is the same under both chapter 14.04 SMC and former chapter 14.19 SMC (2014), and the retaliatory acts alleged are the same for both the retaliation claims herein, we perform a single analysis to determine whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether AHS retaliated against Pope. Such an analysis aligns with the hearing examiner’s decision, which analyzed the retaliation claims under the different code sections as one claim for retaliation. 16 The hearing examiner appeared to accept this presumption because the job description provided by AHS stated that filling out accurate time sheets was a major responsibility of the job. While an employer’s description of a position’s duties is one piece of evidence that could be used to determine the essential functions of a job, it is not the only evidence a fact finder may consider. Indeed, the fact finder may also consider the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function, the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, the work experience of past employees in the job, 19 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 79692-5-I/20 evidence disputing this and establishing that Pope was certified for her job and was capable of performing basic caregiving services such as doing household chores, laundry, cooking, and assisting clients in getting around and using the bathroom. Additionally, the City presented evidence showing that AHS did not implement a telephone clock in system until 2012 and that it allowed employees