 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hatch v. Fred Meyer Inc.3/1/1999
UNPUBLISHED
Violet Hatch appeals the dismissal of her sexual harassment and disability discrimination claims against Fred Meyer, her discrimination claims against two Fred Meyer managers, and her defamation claim against one of those managers. Because Hatch failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding any of these claims, and the defendants were entitled to Judgement as a matter of law, we affirm.
Hatch worked as a retail clerk in the apparel department of a Fred Meyer store. In April 1996, she requested medical leave for treatment of her multiple sclerosis. Fred Meyer granted her initial request for three months of leave and later extended the leave to six months, ending October 19, 1996.
After her leave expired, Hatch presented Fred Meyer with her doctor's approval of two positions for her return to work, along with specific accommodations for her disability. Fred Meyer responded by offering Hatch one of these approved positions, with the specified accommodations. Hatch declined the job offer. She requested a different position, one which her doctor had not authorized. Fred Meyer stated that it did not have any current vacancy in that position. Hatch never returned to work. Hatch sued Fred Meyer and two individual store managers for disability discrimination, negligent hiring and supervision, violation of the Consumer Protection Act, sexual harassment, defamation, and outrage. The latter three claims arose out of an incident that occurred in 1995.
The court granted a CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the discrimination claims and the Consumer Protection Act claim against the individual defendants, Ray Olive and Ronald Albright. On summary Judgement, the court dismissed the sexual harassment, disability discrimination, defamation, negligent hiring and supervision, and outrage claims against Fred Meyer and the defamation claim against Olive. The parties then stipulated to the dismissal of the remainder of Hatch's claims against Fred Meyer. Hatch appeals the trial court's orders dismissing the disability discrimination and sexual harassment claims against Fred Meyer, the discrimination claims against Albright and Olive, and the defamation claim.
I. Disability Discrimination
Hatch claims that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing her claim that Fred Meyer discharged her because of her disability. The record does not support this claim.
We will affirm an order granting summary Judgement if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to Judgement as a matter of law. All facts and reasonable inferences must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We review questions of law de novo.
RCW 49.60.180(2) states that it is an unfair practice for an employer to "discharge or bar any person from employment because of . . . the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability." Hatch bears the initial burden of showing that Fred Meyer terminated her employment because she suffered from MS. Once she makes this showing, the burden shifts to Fred Meyer to show that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging Hatch. The burden then shifts back to Hatch to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether this supposedly legitimate reason is actually a pretext for discrimination.
At the heart of Hatch's wrongful discharge claim is her contention that Fred Meyer failed to reasonably accommodate her MS. But the record shows otherwise.
Employers have an affirmative duty to take "positive steps" to accommodate an employee's disability. Failure to do so constitu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|