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

1,745 chars

Finally, AHS asserts that the City failed to establish a prima facie case of

retaliation under both SMC 14.04.040 and former SMC 14.19.060 (2014) and

that even if it had so established, AHS provided unchallenged evidence justifying

its suspension of Pope and establishing that retaliation was not a substantial

factor in the suspension. This is so, AHS asserts, because (1) a suspension to

enable an employee to obtain medical authorization to work is never an adverse

employment action—and therefore there was no dispute that Pope’s suspension

was not an adverse employment action—and (2) even if there was prima facie

evidence of an adverse employment action, there was no evidence supporting an

inference that the suspension was retaliatory because the suspension was

intended to enable Pope to provide AHS with medical information about her

disability so that it could develop a reasonable accommodation.18

18 AHS also appears to assert that it suspended Pope because of disciplinary issues,

specifically that she failed to remember to clock in properly or show up to work as scheduled.
Even if these considerations were part of the decision to suspend Pope—the parties disputed
whether these disciplinary issues were merely a pretext—that does not establish that the request
for an accommodation and the filing of complaints were not substantial factors in the decision.
Additionally, it is odd for AHS to so assert because, by doing so, it is essentially admitting that it
suspended Pope because of issues arising directly from her memory related disability.

22
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 79692-5-I/23

AHS is incorrect that a medical suspension may never be an adverse