Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 352625_pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 352625_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,773 chars
not clear to return to work until after a follow-up appointment on August 31. The

doctor’s note did not provide the reason for Ms. Espindola’s hospitalization, but

according to Ms. Espindola she had been hospitalized due to the kidney stones. Apple

King did not assess Ms. Espindola any attendance points for her hospitalization. It is

unclear whether Apple King knew of the reason for Ms. Espindola’s hospitalization, but

the company did at least know that Ms. Espindola had been hospitalized during the course

of her pregnancy.

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 35262-5-III
Espindola v. Apple King

In the months following her hospitalization, Ms. Espindola had numerous medical

appointments. Apple King was advised of the appointments, and Ms. Espindola was not

assessed any attendance points for those absences. Ms. Espindola was also permitted to

take time to check her blood sugar at work after reporting that she had been diagnosed

with gestational diabetes. Ms. Espindola’s gestational diabetes did not cause her to miss

work.

The last full month of Ms. Espindola’s pregnancy was December 2011. During

that month, Ms. Espindola left work early on three occasions. She was assessed two

attendance points on each date. Also in December, Ms. Espindola missed a day of work

and provided same-day notice of her absence. Ms. Espindola was assessed three points

on this occasion. Ms. Espindola did not provide any doctors’ notes explaining her

December absences. However, Ms. Espindola has testified that she had told her

supervisor she was in debilitating pain from kidney stones. According to Ms. Espindola,

her supervisor provided permission to either leave work early or stay at home, as at times