Apple King had terminated her employment in a discriminatory and retaliatory manner
because she missed work due to serious health conditions. In January 2016, the district
court dismissed most of Ms. Espindola’s claims on summary judgment, leaving only
claims for unlawful discrimination and retaliation under the state and federal family
medical leave acts. In a letter decision dated June 22, 2016, the district court also granted
summary judgment to Apple King on the remaining claims. The superior court affirmed
on appeal. Our court granted discretionary review pursuant to RAP 2.3(d)(3).
8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 35262-5-III
Espindola v. Apple King
ANALYSIS
We review orders on summary judgment de novo. Lyons v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
181 Wn.2d 775, 783, 336 P.3d 1142 (2014); Mikolajczak v. Mann, 1 Wn. App. 2d 493,
496, 406 P.3d 670 (2017). Under this standard, our court engages in the same inquiry as
the trial court, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Lyons, 181 Wn.2d at 783; Mikolajczak, 1 Wn. App. 2d
at 496-97.
The federal and state medical leave acts
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654;
29 C.F.R. pt. 825 was implemented by the federal government to address “inadequate job
security for employees who have serious health conditions that prevent them from
working temporary periods.” 29 U.S.C. § 2601(a)(4). The purposes of the FMLA
include the need “to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families,”
and “to entitle employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons” including “the