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
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/352625_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,096 chars

1
The medical leave statutes also prohibit employers from interfering with
an employee’s exercise of FMLA/WFLA rights. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1);
RCW 49.78.300(1)(a). However, this case does not involve a straight interference
claim, such as what might be asserted if an employer refused to grant an employee
the substantive right to reinstatement after the employee exercised protected leave.

10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

§ 825.220(c) 2 “prohibits an employer from discriminating or retaliating against an

employee or prospective employee for having exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA

rights.” 3

The legal test applicable to Ms. Espindola’s FMLA/WFLA claim

Ms. Espindola’s complaint alleged the second type of protection from retaliation,

i.e., that she was terminated for exercising rights protected by the FMLA and WFLA.

29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c). Pursuant to this form of protection, “employers cannot use the

taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring,