 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Owens v. Farmers Insurance Exchange3/22/1999
g the causes of action she alleged were disability discrimination, a violation of the FMLA, and breach of an employment contract. Farmers moved for a summary Judgement dismissal of all claims. The trial court granted the motion. According to the court's memorandum opinion, Farmers had enough information on September 12, 1994 to understand that Owens intended to request a medical leave. But, the trial court reasoned, "Farmers essentially cured any earlier failure to clarify the communication" by informing Owens that Farmers would reconsider if she sent documentation from a doctor that would support a leave request.
It is inexplicable why in late October\early November she or her attorney did not obtain a letter from her doctor confirming her diagnosis, the need for a leave and the time period for the necessary leave. . . . Ms. Owens did not meet her obligation to provide notice of her condition and confirmation of her need for a leave of absence.
Owens appeals from the order of dismissal.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Owens brought her disability claim under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60. She claims that Farmers discriminated against her in two ways: (1) failure to accommodate her disability, and (2) disparate treatment as reflected in her termination.
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Owens must show both (1) the presence of an abnormal condition, and (2) Farmers discriminated against her because of that condition. Farmers does not dispute that Owens' depression was an abnormal and serious mental condition. The issue is whether Farmers discriminated against her because of that condition.
There can be no disability discrimination where the employer lacks notice that the employee suffers from a serious medical condition. The employee is not obligated to inform the employer of the full nature and extent of the disability, but still must give notice of the disability sufficient to initiate an interactive exchange with the employer about what accommodations would be reasonable.
In Martini v. Boeing Co., this court held there was sufficient notice to the employer of a disability after EAP counselors diagnosed a plaintiff employee with major depression and referred him for training to assist him with that condition. Like the plaintiff in Martini, Owens saw an EAP counselor, who diagnosed her with major depression. Farmers argues that seeing an EAP counselor is not enough by itself to trigger the employer's' duty because EAP programs operate under principles of confidentiality. Even if this is so, there is substantial evidence that Farmers had notice of Owens' depression apart from any notice through the EAP program. Weeks before Owens' termination, the supervisors at Farmers learned from Owens herself that she was receiving mental health counseling. Then, on the Monday before her scheduled appointment with the psychiatrist, Owens called in and told her supervisor she was "not of any sound mind" to perform her duties for Farmers. Finally, while Farmers maintains it did not receive the note from the psychiatrist, Owens insists that she mailed it. Viewed in the light most favorable to Owens, Farmers received information specific enough to put Farmers on notice that the counseling Owens was receiving was for a disabling mental condition. A jury could conclude that Farmers breached its duty by firing Owens hastily, without first inquiring whether accommodations were possible.
The trial court viewed Farmers as having cured any deficiency in its initial response by giving Owens another chance to document her condition before the termination became final. The court used the wor
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|