18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 35262-5-III
Espindola v. Apple King
alert to Ms. Espindola’s need for unexpected protected leave was at least somewhat
enhanced.
The record on appeal suggests at least two pertinent time periods when Ms.
Espindola provided adequate notice of the need for protected leave from work. 6 The first
time period was late July 2011. On July 20, Ms. Espindola became ill and left work early.
She subsequently produced a doctor’s note dated July 21 stating she had been prescribed
two days’ bed rest. A reasonable inference from these facts is that Ms. Espindola’s
absence on July 20 was related to the need for bed rest prescribed on July 21 and 22.
Given that bed rest is a common prescription for pregnancy-related complications, a fact
finder could determine that Ms. Espindola’s notice was sufficient to reasonably apprise
Apple King of the need for protected leave.
The second relevant time period was December 2011. This was the last full month
of Ms. Espindola’s pregnancy. According to Ms. Espindola, she told her supervisor she
suffered from episodic debilitating pain due to kidney stones that required her to stay
home from work or leave early. Ms. Espindola’s attendance records confirm that in
December 2011, Ms. Espindola left work early on three occasions and provided same-day
6
It is undisputed that there were other periods for which Ms. Espindola provided
adequate notice. However, because Apple King excused those absences, they are not
relevant to our inquiry.
19
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 35262-5-III
Espindola v. Apple King
notice of an absence on one occasion. A reasonable fact finder could infer that the