July 16, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
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.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
July 2, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
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.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination, Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination
July 2, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
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.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
May 14, 2015
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Jordan Jones
In Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass’n, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three held that a provisional elementary counselor was not eligible for arbitration under the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA).
Filed Under: Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
May 14, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Port of Bellingham, PERC Examiner Martin held that the employer did not commit a ULP by transferring daily inspection duties away from its maintenance employees without first providing an opportunity to bargain. Examiner Martin noted that the Port did not have an obligation to bargain in this case because (1) the work was so briefly assigned to the maintenance bargaining unit, (2) non-bargaining unit employees had also been performing the work, and (3) by the time the work was transferred to other port employees it was fundamentally different from the maintenance bargaining unit’s regular work.
Filed Under: Scope of Bargaining
April 28, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Central Washington University, PERC Examiner Slone-Gomez held that the University committed a ULP when it contracted out a roofing project without first providing notice to and an opportunity to bargain with the Maintenance Mechanics Union in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a) and (e).
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
April 22, 2015
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Hall v. BNSF Railway Company, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that a homosexual male employee stated a valid gender discrimination claim against his employer for denying health benefits to his husband. The Court refused to dismiss what it determined to be a valid gender discrimination claim where the male employee and his male partner were legally married and BNSF provided coverage for the male spouses of female employees.
Filed Under: Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination, Race Discrimination
April 22, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Brennen Johnson
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.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
April 16, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Port of Anacortes, the Commission reversed an Examiner’s decision that the Employer did not unilaterally change working conditions by ending the use of a light duty assignment without providing notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain. The Commission held that the Examiner incorrectly analyzed the issue as to whether the Employer unilaterally changed a past practice. The Commission stated that in cases involving newly organized bargaining units who had not finished negotiating their first CBAs, the issue is whether the Employer unilaterally changed the status quo without bargaining.
Filed Under: Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
April 9, 2015
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In two linked lawsuits filed by the Washington Education Association against the Washington Department of Retirement Systems, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the State may repeal the gain sharing benefits and certain cost of living adjustments attached to pension plans of State employees. A coalition of organizations representing state employees filed the lawsuits in an effort to invalidate the legislature’s actions in 2007, and 2011, that repealed these benefits. However, the Court determined that the State was allowed to repeal the benefits because the laws that initially conferred the benefits did so gratuitously, anticipated a possible repeal, and did not bestow contract rights upon employees.
