 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Scott Paper Worldwide Co.12/13/1999
person will be considered to be "handicapped" {now "disabled"} by a sensory, mental or physical condition if he or she is discriminated against because of the condition and the condition is abnormal. WAC 162-22-040(1)(a). The existence of a claim is, therefore, dependent on a finding of discrimination.
The "discrimination" element of disability discrimination is met if the employee demonstrates that the employer took action against the employee because of his or her condition (disparate treatment) or failed to take steps reasonably necessary to accommodate the employee's disability (failure to accommodate). Doe v. Boeing Co., 121 Wn.2d 8, 17, 846 P.2d 531 (1993). Under either the disparate treatment theory or the failure to accommodate theory, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the employer had notice of the disability. Hume v. American Disposal Co., 124 Wn.2d 656, 671-72, 880 P.2d 988 (1994); Goodman v. Boeing Co., 127 Wn.2d 401, 408, 899 P.2d 1265 (1995).
In order to satisfy the "notice" element, an employee is not required to tell the employer about the full nature and extent of the disability, only that a disability requiring accommodation existed. Stevens v. City of Centralia, 86 Wn. App. 145, 156, 936 P.2d 1141, review granted, 133 Wn.2d 1001 (1997) (citing Goodman, 127 Wn.2d at 408). The Washington Supreme Court has adopted the test for constructive notice set out in Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d 869, 877 n.6 (9th Cir. 1989) (construing Washington law): "As long as the employer is on notice that an employee suffers from a serious medical condition, it may be liable under the handicap discrimination law." Hume, 124 Wn.2d at 671. We agree with the trial court that Brown failed to meet the burden of showing such notice.
The defendants introduced evidence that Brown was not diagnosed as depressed until after she was terminated, that she never told anyone at Scott Paper that she was disabled until after she was terminated, that no Scott Paper employee ever expressed a belief that she might have been disabled, and that she never requested any accommodation. Brown did not dispute this evidence. Instead, she contended that the defendants should have known of her disability because her job performance was affected by her depression. The evidence provided by Brown in support of this contention, however, fails to support her claim. To rebut the summary judgment motion, Brown submitted copies of her correspondence with Scott Paper; excerpts of testimony from Scott Paper's Personnel Manager, James Lockard, and another manager; Lockard's and other managers' notes and memoranda detailing various meetings with Brown; Mr. Uslan's declaration that Brown had been suffering from depression since 1991; and her own declaration. Nowhere in these documents is there any evidence that Brown ever told anyone at Scott Paper, before she was terminated, that she felt she had any sort of serious medical condition. Neither is there any indication in those documents that anyone at Scott Paper perceived that Brown had a disability. The closest thing to evidence of a disability in the materials submitted by Brown are Scott Paper's managers' statements that Brown had difficulty controlling her emotions and her anger, but these statements do not betray any recognition that Brown had a serious medical or mental problem. Recurrent throughout the letters and deposition testimony are managers' statements that Brown was not happy on the job, had difficulty with peer relationships, did not control her anger and emotions appropriately, dealt poorly with stress, and became "paranoid" when managers attempted to talk with her about her job performance, but there was not
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|