 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hatch v. Fred Meyer Inc.3/1/1999
tes discrimination under RCW 49.60.180. An employer is not required to offer the employee the exact accommodation she prefers. Instead, the accommodation must be "reasonable," the product of an informational exchange between the employer and employee aimed at "achiev{ing} the best match between the employee's capabilities and available positions."
A Fred Meyer human resources employee contacted Hatch in June 1996 to talk about her return to work. Again in August, the staff member contacted Hatch about attending a training to facilitate her return to work in a different position. Hatch testified that she did not attend the training because the job would require nighttime hours that she was unable to work. Hatch then scheduled a meeting with the staff member for late September, but thereafter canceled it. Dr. Markus released Hatch to return to work on October 23, four days after the expiration of her six-month leave. Hatch elected to delay her return to work until October 28.
Dr. Markus' original release, dated October 23, authorized Hatch only for positions that would require her to lift no more than 10 pounds. A second release, dated October 28, authorized her to work in positions that would require her to lift no more than 20 pounds. Fred Meyer then asked Hatch to give her doctor the job descriptions for positions in which she was interested. On October 31, the doctor approved two positions in the apparel department, cashier and sales representative. He also specified hour and day restrictions.
Based on this information, Fred Meyer offered Hatch a cashier position, with the doctor's specified restrictions regarding times and days of shifts. A week later, Hatch declined the offer, stating that she could not perform the job with her MS. But Hatch did not provide a letter from her doctor explaining why she could not perform the job he had just approved. Nor did she provide Fred Meyer with any further information regarding her medical condition. Instead, Hatch told Fred Meyer that she was interested in a position that her doctor had not authorized. Fred Meyer had no current vacancies in that position. Based on this record, Hatch fails to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact concerning Fred Meyer's failure to accommodate her disability.
Moreover, the facts here show that Fred Meyer had a legitimate reason for discharging Hatch namely, Hatch's failure to return from her approved medical leave. Hatch fails to meet her burden of showing that this objectively legitimate reason was a pretext for discrimination. The facts here are similar to those in Michelsen. There, after employee Michelsen was released to return to work, Boeing took positive steps to accommodate his disability, placing him in a position approved by physicians and vocational counselors. Michelsen stopped coming to work, and Boeing terminated his employment for his unexcused absences. We found that summary dismissal of Michelsen's disability discrimination claim was proper. The record showed that Boeing tried to accommodate Michelsen's disability, and Michelsen failed to present affidavits showing why these accommodations were insufficient.
Here, similarly, Hatch fails to show why Fred Meyer's accommodation of her disability was not reasonable. She also fails to show how Fred Meyer's apparently legitimate reason for discharging her is pretextual. Hatch next argues that Fred Meyer failed to reasonably accommodate her disability because, under her reading of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, she apparently lost her seniority by failing to return to work immediately after the expiration of her approved medical leave. She cites no legal authority for this argument. And she fa
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.
|
|