Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/796925.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,151 chars

to use an alternative time sheet if necessary. Indeed, the City introduced

evidence that Pope herself had utilized a paper time keeping system while

working for AHS. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the City,

could persuade a reasonable trier of fact that the telephone clock in system was

not an essential function of Pope’s job and that she could perform the essential

functions of her job.

Similarly, AHS’s assertion that Pope never requested a reasonable

accommodation is premised on the faulty argument that she had to provide

certain medical proof of her disability to make such a request. This contention

was flatly rejected by our Supreme Court in Goodman, which concluded that

employers must take positive steps to address an employee’s disability once it is

notified of the existence of such a disability.17 127 Wn.2d at 408-09. The City

and the current work experience of employees in similar jobs. Dedman, 98 Wn. App. at 479. The
hearing examiner herein improperly considered the written job description to be dispositive.
17 AHS appears to assert that the standard is different when the employee works with