Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,761 chars

we noted above, whether the School’s accommodations were reasonable or whether

Suarez’s request for unpaid leave on September 29 created an undue hardship are factual

issues that cannot be resolved on this record.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal of Suarez’s statutory claims for

discrimination (disparate treatment) and retaliation. We reverse the summary dismissal

of Suarez’s statutory claim for failure to accommodate her religious beliefs and discharge

in violation of public policy because unresolved factual issues in the record create

genuine issues of material fact that preclude dismissal of those claims on summary

judgment.

Affirm in part and reverse in part.

_________________________________
Staab, J.

I CONCUR:

______________________________
Fearing, J.

30
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III

LAWRENCE-BERREY, A.C.J. (dissenting) — This case presents excellent facts to

address how the concepts of reasonable accommodation and undue burden apply to a

claim of religious discrimination. In my view, the majority errs in its application of the

law to these facts. I would affirm the summary dismissal of Adeline Suarez’s claims

because, as a matter of law, Yakima Valley School (School) reasonably accommodated

her religious practices.1

Washington law supports a claim for failure to reasonably accommodate an

employee’s religious practices. Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 500-01,

325 P.3d 193 (2014). An employer can defend against such a claim “by showing that it

offered the employee a reasonable accommodation or that an accommodation would be

an ‘undue hardship’ on the employer.” Id. at 502. An accommodation request that