Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 309941.cor.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 309941.cor.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/309941.cor.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,721 chars

Yakima, 612 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2010). Brownfield alleged five causes of action:

retaliation for reporting a fellow officer's unlawful conduct, which
retaliation violated Brownfield's first amendment rights and the
Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) RCW 49.60;

retaliation for whistleblowing activities in violation of the WLAD;

violations of Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);
and

violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and HIP AA; and

negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training of Police Chief
Granato in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

See CP at 438. On June 4,2009, United States District Court Judge Robert H. Whaley

granted summary judgment in favor of the city of Yakima.

In his summary judgment ruling, Judge Whaley first addressed Jeff Brownfield's

ADA claim. He ruled that the city of Yakima met the ADA's "business necessity"

exception that allowed it to subject Brownfield to a fitness for duty examination "and that

[city of Yakima] had a valid non-discriminatory reason (insubordination) for firing

[Brownfield]." CP at 438. The judge applied the "business necessity" exception because

"[t]he undisputed facts establish[ed] that [Brownfield] demonstrated a pattern of highly

14
             

No.30994-I-II1
Brownfield v. City of Yakima

emotional responses to a number of situations he encountered during the course of

employment between May 2005 and September 28,2005." CP at 439-40. "On this

record, no reasonable jury could find that [Yakima] did not have a substantial and

legitimate objective basis to question whether [Mr. Brownfield] was emotionally stable