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

1,422 chars

employment action. See, e.g., Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548

U.S. 53, 71-72, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2006) (concluding that a

medical suspension without pay was adverse employment action even when

employee receives back pay at the end of the suspension). While a medical

evaluation is not necessarily itself an adverse action, the accompanying

suspension without pay certainly qualifies as adverse. See Burlington, 548 U.S.

at 73 (“A reasonable employee facing the choice between retaining her job (and

paycheck) and filing a discrimination complaint might well choose the former.”).

It is undisputed that AHS suspended Pope without pay and never allowed her to

return to work. Such a suspension plainly constitutes an adverse employment

action.19

AHS is also incorrect that its explanation for Pope’s suspension—to allow

her to obtain medical proof of the impacts of her disability and to be medically

cleared to work—established that it was not retaliatory. As the City notes in its

briefing, a fact finder could doubt AHS’s proffered reason for suspending Pope

because of the timing of the suspension, which occurred shortly after the filing of

complaints with SOCR and SOLS, and because AHS never sought to have a

doctor examine Pope during her suspension. The City therefore plainly

19 Furthermore, it is disputed by the parties that AHS’s suspension of Pope was actually