As we indicated in another recent blog, LEOFF II personnel retain their right to sue their own employer for harm caused by employer negligence. This is one subject among many concerning Washington’s public safety personnel for which there is a significant lack of accurate information. It is in the face of that breach of knowledge that we’re releasing our upcoming “Helping the Injured or Disabled Member: A Guidebook for the Washington Law Enforcement Union Representative.” More on that book and the free training we are providing with the book’s roll-out later this year.
This article is the 2nd in a multiple part series covering the rights your injured and disabled members have and how you, as a union or guild representative, can best assist them. Over the next two to three months, we’ll be publishing, in various segments, information on how state and federal laws protect your members who are hurt or otherwise unable to work. We’ll cover topics including disability discrimination law, the FMLA, job protection rights under the CBA, workers compensation, disability benefits, and the right to bring a civil lawsuit.
This article is the 1st in a multiple part series covering the rights your injured and disabled members have and how you, as a union or guild representative, can best assist them. Over the next two to three months, we’ll be publishing, in various segments, information on how state and federal laws protect your members who are hurt or otherwise unable to work. We’ll cover topics including disability discrimination law, the FMLA, job protection rights under the CBA, workers compensation, disability benefits, and the right to bring a civil lawsuit.
We have often said, “Knowledge is Power” and seemingly nowhere is that more true than in connection with the rights you and your members have when they are injured and disabled. Our experience in representing public safety labor organizations throughout the state is that there is a shortage of thorough or even accurate information about the rights of injured or disabled officers.
In Garcia v. Cintas Corp. No. 3, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a Washington District Court’s dismissal of an employee’s claim that her employer failed to accommodate her disability in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In her complaint, the employee claimed that her employer failed to accommodate her wrist injury after it worsened months after the injury first occurred. The District Court found that the employee did not provide enough evidence that she notified her employer that her current work would aggravate her injury or that she was substantially limited, so it dismissed her case. The Court of Appeals agreed with the dismissal of her case, and affirmed the District Court’s decision.
In Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1, et al. v. City of Camden, et al., a New Jersey District Court dismissed several officers’ claims that they had been retaliated against, and one officer’s claim that his FMLA rights had been denied by the City. In their complaint, the officers claimed that several defendants had retaliated against them or interfered with their FMLA rights after they spoke out against a “directed patrol” policy. The District Court dismissed all of their claims because the officers failed to show that their poor performance under the policy was not the primary reason for their transfers. The Court also found that there was no evidence that the defendants denied one of the officers his rights under the FMLA or harmed him.
In Brownell v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1, a Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a former public utility employee’s disability discrimination lawsuit. In his complaint, the worker claimed that he was terminated for violation of work rules that were selectively enforced against him. The Court of Appeals found that the selective enforcement of the rules and lack of negative performance reviews showed that the worker may have a valid claim for disability discrimination. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the worker’s claim and allowed him to bring his claim to trial.
In Mesmer v. Charter Communications, Inc., a District Court in Washington found that a correspondence coordinator had claims of interference with his FMLA rights, failure to accommodate his PTSD, and sexual harassment under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In his complaint, the coordinator claimed that he suffered from PTSD symptoms and his employer failed to accommodate his disability, subjected him to sexual harassment by a male coworker, and his employer willfully violated his FMLA rights by firing him for attempting to take medical leave. Learn more about harassment in the workplace from an employment lawyer. They can also define harassment in the workplace more clearly for you. The District Court found that the coordinator had stated sufficient facts to support his claims, and that his lawsuit should be heard at trial.
In Oberti v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al. the District Court held that an employee could continue a claim for failure to accommodate under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) although his “shy bladder syndrome” is not considered a disability under the ADA (The ADA has since been amended to the Americans with Disabilities Act As Amended (ADAAA). Under the new ADAAA, which greatly broadened the medical conditions which constitute a “disability”, “shy bladder syndrome” would probably be considered a “disability”.). In his suit, the employee claimed that his employer failed to accommodate his disability when it discharged him for failing to provide a urine sample for a drug test. The District Court found that the employee showed that his disability was medically diagnosable and substantially limited his employment, his employer did not engage in the interactive process, and his employer did not provide accommodation.
In Banks v. Yoke's Foods, a U.S. District Court in Washington State denied a grocery company’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former deli manager. In her lawsuit, the former employee alleged that the company wrongfully demoted (and eventually fired) her because of her anxiety disorder, in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The company requested that the Court dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the former employee failed to allege that her disability was a substantial factor in her termination. The Court concluded that the former employee had alleged sufficient facts to support an inference that the company had discriminated against her based on her anxiety disorder.
