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

1,723 chars

argument is insufficient to merit judicial consideration. West v. Thurston County, 168

Wn. App. 162, 187, 275 P 3d 1200 (20 12) (quoting Holland v. City ofTacoma, 90 Wn.

App. 533, 538,954 P.2d 290 (1998)). Therefore, we decline to address this assignment

28
             

No.30994-1-III
Brownfield v. City ofYakima

of error.

A thorough analysis and citation to authority is particularly apt in this case. The

law of reasonable accommodation involves an interactive process between the employer

and employee.

Generally, the best way for the employer and employee to determine a
reasonable accommodation is through a flexible, interactive process. RCW
49.60.040(7)(d); MacSuga v. Spokane County, 97 Wn. App. 435,443,983
P.2d 1167 (1999). A reasonable accommodation envisions an exchange
between employer and employee, where each party seeks and shares
information to achieve the best match between the employee's capabilities
and available positions. See Goodman v. Boeing Co., 127 Wn.2d 401,408
09,899 P.2d 1265 (1995); RCW 49.60.040(7)(d). "[A]n impairment must
be known or shown through an interactive process to exist in fact.") The
employer has a duty to determine the nature and extent of the disability, but
only after the employee has initiated the process by notice. Goodman, 127
Wn.2d at 409. In addition, the employee retains a duty to cooperate with
the employer's efforts by explaining the disability and the employee's
qualifications. ld. at 408. A good faith exchange of information between
parties is required whether the employer chooses to transfer the employee
to a new position or to accommodate the employee in the current position.