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

1,785 chars

Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 446. Herein, AHS’s only proffered explanation was that

without certain medical proof of Pope’s disability, it was not able to develop an

accommodation. Not only is this explanation legally insufficient—as employers

are required to take affirmative steps to accommodate a disability once they are

notified of its existence even in the absence of medical proof, Goodman, 127

Wn.2d at 408-09—but such an explanation appears dubious in light of the fact

that AHS never once requested Pope to submit to a fitness for duty medical

examination and ignored Pope’s medical provider’s e-mail declaring her fit for

work. Plainly, the City established a dispute of material fact regarding the

question of whether AHS discriminated against Pope because of her disability.

The Echazabal court further noted that “an employer must gather ‘substantial information’
about an employee’s work history and medical status” to make an individualized assessment.
336 F.3d at 1028. There is no evidence in the record herein to suggest that AHS obtained such
information or completed such an individualized assessment.

21
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 79692-5-I/22

AHS next asserts that it has a complete defense to discrimination claims

under SMC 14.04.050(D) because Pope could not perform the essential

functions of her job. However, because the City provided evidence of Pope’s

ability to perform the essential functions of her job, AHS has not established, as a

matter of law, that SMC 14.04.050(D)’s exception for cases wherein an

employee’s disability prevents her or him from performing the job is applicable.

Summary judgment premised on the defense set forth in SMC 14.04.050(D) was,

therefore, improper.