COURT

CASE

IMPORTANT POINTS

• To prove discrimination based on a failure to accommodate, an employee must first prove that: 1) He/she was qualified to fill the vacant positions; and 2) The employer failed to take affirmative measures to make known job opportunities to the employee and to determine whether employee was in fact qualified for such positions.
• Metro failed to reasonably accommodate the employee where it treated him as any other applicant, did not determine the extent of his disability, did not call him into the office to assist him in applying for other positions, and failed to take affirmative steps to help him find another position.

• Employer need not provide accommodation requested.
• Employer is required to transfer employee to an alternative position if such a position exists and employee is qualified to perform it.

• Employee's failure to request a reasonable accommodation does not absolve the employer from obligation to accommodate the employee's disabilities.

• Employee's gender dysphoria was not a "handicap."
• Employer's duty to reasonably accommodate the employee's abnormal condition is limited to those steps necessary to enable employee to perform his or her job.

• Employer has no duty to exempt employee from a policy that applied to all employees in the same position or to create a special position for employee.
• Employee has duty to cooperate in reasonable accommodation process by, among other things, accepting reasonable offers of accommodation.

• Employer's duty to accommodate arises when employer is aware of employee's disability and physical limitations; employee bears burden of giving employer notice of disability, which then triggers employer's burden to take positive steps to accommodate employee's limitations.
• Employee's notice burden does not include informing employer of full nature and extent of disability; however, employee retains duty to cooperate with employer's efforts by explaining her disability and qualifications.
• Reasonable accommodation of employee's disability envisions exchange between employer and employee where each seeks and shares information to achieve best match between employee's capabilities and available positions.

• Cites all Goodman rules above.
• An employee's discussion with an employee assistance counselor about his depression and other impairments provided sufficient notice to trigger the company's duty to further investigate the impact of employee's disability.

• Duty of employer to reasonably accommodate employee's handicap does not arise until employer is aware of employee's disability and physical limitations; this triggers employer's burden to take positive steps to accommodate employee's limitations.
• No duty arises on part of employer to accommodate employee's limitations from his handicap unless there is need for accommodation.
• Employee retains duty to cooperate with employer's efforts to accommodate employee's handicap by explaining her disability and qualifications.

• Accommodation claim under the Law Against Discrimination (Act) presents essentially two issues: (1) whether the employee was disabled or handicapped within the meaning of the Act; and (2) whether the employer met its affirmative obligation to reasonably accommodate the handicap.
• Note: the Supreme Court of Washington rejects the Human Rights Commission's, (WAC 162-22-020) definition of "handicap" and holds the following: Accommodation claimant satisfies the "handicap" element of his or her claim under the Law Against Discrimination by proving that (1) he or she has/had a sensory, mental, or physical abnormality and (2) such abnormality has/had a substantially limiting effect upon the individual's ability to perform his or her job; employee can show that he has a sensory, mental or physical abnormality, by showing that he or she has a condition that is medically cognizable or diagnosable, or exists as a record or history.
• To trigger the employer's duty of reasonable accommodation under the Law Against Discrimination, the employee must give the employer notice of his or her disability.  Under the Law Against Discrimination, the employee has the burden of showing that a specific reasonable accommodation was available to the employer at the time the employee's physical limitation became known and that accommodation was medically necessary, after which the burden then shifts to the employer to show that the proposed solution is not feasible.

• Employer's duty under WA law to accommodation an employee arises when an employer has notice of a disability - "it appears that the Washington courts have never required that an employee request an accommodation in order for the employee's duty to accommodate to arise."
• Employer has affirmative obligation to assist employee in identifying and applying for an available job for which the employee is qualified.

• Note: the Supreme Court of Washington, citing Pulcino definition of 'handicap' holds the following: To establish a prima facie case of failure to reasonably accommodate a disability under Washington case law, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the employee had a sensory, mental, or physical abnormality that substantially limited his or her ability to perform the job (Pulcino); (2) the employee was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in questions; (3) the employee gave the employer notice of the abnormality and its accompanying substantial limitations; and (4) upon notice, the employer failed to affirmatively adopt measures that were available to the employer and medically necessary to accommodate the abnormality.
• Employers are not required to provide disabled persons with medically unnecessary accommodations.

• If the employee's medical condition changes in such a way that he/she would be able to perform different essential functions the employee must make the employer aware of those changes.  The employee has ready access to his medical providers and will be the first to know of any improvement.  The employer, in contrast, does not have first hand knowledge and does not have ready access to the employee's medical records - indeed, the employee's medical records would most likely be protected by privilege.

• An employee must show that he or she can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.  An employer can then assert that the accommodation presents an undue hardship.  Merely providing temporary relief cannot discharge this obligation.

• WLAD supports a disability-based hostile work environment claim.

• Interprets Pulcino definition of 'handicap/disability' to apply to disparate treatment cases, citing Hill as the basis for such interpretation.  Based on Hill, the court applied the Pulcino definition of 'handicap/disability' to the disparate treatment claim, finding it to be "consistent with Washington's broad application of the discrimination laws."