Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,800 chars
without specifying whether this claim relates to failure to accommodate or disparate treatment. In
Bittner’s statement of the issues and argument in his opening brief, he solely discusses his failure
to accommodate claim and does not provide any argument regarding his disparate treatment claim.
“Passing treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient to merit judicial
consideration.” Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533, 538, 954 P.2d 290 (1998).

- 24 -
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85708-8-I

satisfies the second McDonnell Douglas step. Instead, he focuses on the first and

third steps. We assume for purposes of our discussion that Bittner can establish

fact issues as to a prima facie claim of failure to accommodate (the first McDonnell

Douglas step) and that Symetra has articulated a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason

for the employment decision (the second McDonnell Douglas step). For Bittner to

satisfy his burden on summary judgment under the third McDonnell Douglas step,

he must produce “sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact

either (1) that the employer’s articulated reason is pretextual or (2) that although

the employer’s stated reason is legitimate, discrimination nevertheless was a

substantial factor motivating the employer.” Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 441-42.

Bittner claims he has produced such evidence for three reasons, but we reject

each of them.

First, Bittner argues that he “became temporarily disabled as a result of

Symetra’s threats and intimidation” and that he “needed leave because he

developed several medical conditions, including anxiety and depression, as a

result of the stress from Symetra’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions.” This