Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 309941.cor.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,791 chars

the trial court, Brownfield did not argue that the firing for insubordination was pretextual.

The firing of leffBrownfield came immediately after he refused an order from City

Manager Dick Zais to complete an important and valid examination to determine his

psychological fitness for duty. Brownfield provides no evidence of Zais treating anyone

dissimilarly from him. City Manager Zais was removed from the complaints earlier

raised by Brownfield.

No.30994-I-III
Brownfield v. City o/Yakima

Summary judgment principles are familiar but must be repeated. Summary

judgment should be granted if the evidence establishes there is no genuine issue of

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR

56(c); Ruffv. Countyo/King, 125 Wn.2d 697, 703,887 P.2d 886 (1995). To succeed on

a summary judgment motion, the moving party must first show the absence of an issue of

material fact. Ingersoll v. DeBartolo, Inc., 123 Wn.2d 649, 654, 869 P.2d 1014 (1994).

The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing a

genuine issue for trial. Id. at 654. The court must construe all facts and reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Lybbert v. Grant County,

141 Wn.2d 29, 34, I P.3d 1124 (2000). On appeal of summary judgment, the standard of

review is de novo and the appellate court performs the same inquiry as the trial court. Id.

at 34. To repeat, Jeff Brownfield presents no evidence supporting a conclusion that his

firing was pretextual.

Issue IV: Should we review whether Jeff Brownfield's claim for failure to

accommodate a disability survives a summary judgment motion, when he presents no