Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 52293-4-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052293-4-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,410 chars

have been effective,” and therefore an employee “has a duty to communicate to the employer

whether the accommodation was effective.” Id. at 783. If the employee does not communicate

to the employer that an accommodation was not effective, he or she cannot maintain a failure to

accommodate claim. See id.; see also Gamble v. City of Seattle, 6 Wn. App. 2d 883, 891-92, 431

P.3d 1091 (2018), review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1006 (2019) (framing the issue as to whether the

employer was on notice that its previous accommodations were no longer reasonably

accommodating the employee’s disability and noting the employee’s duty to inform the

employer that the accommodations were lacking).

Mackey admitted that she never complained to Home Depot that she did not have

someone to lift for her or that the accommodation was not adequate. Because Mackey did not

communicate to Home Depot that the accommodations it provided were not working, she did not

raise a genuine issue of material fact that Home Depot failed to accommodate her degenerative

25
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 52293-4-II

disc disease. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in dismissing Mackey’s failure to

accommodate claim.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment order dismissing Mackey’s claims.

MAXA, C.J.

We concur:

MELNICK, J.

GLASGOW, J.

26