birth . . . of a child.” 29 U.S.C. § 2601(b)(1), (2). Similarly, Washington’s Family Leave
Act (WFLA), chapter 49.78 RCW, states it is “in the public interest to provide reasonable
leave for medical reasons.” RCW 49.78.010. The WFLA mirrors the FMLA and
provides that courts are to interpret its provisions in a manner consistent with similar
9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 35262-5-III
Espindola v. Apple King
provisions of the FMLA. RCW 49.78.410 (The WFLA “must be construed . . .
consistent[ly] with similar provisions, if any, of the [FMLA] . . . and [provide]
consideration to the rules, precedents, and practices of the federal department of labor
relevant to the [FMLA].”); Shelton v. Boeing Co., 702 Fed. App’x 567, 568 (9th Cir.
2017); Crawford v. JP Morgan Chase NA, 983 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1269 (W.D. Wash.
2013).
The substantive right enjoyed by employees under the FMLA and WFLA is the
ability to take 12 weeks’ leave from work per year for protected health or family reasons
without suffering negative employment consequences. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612(a)(1), 2614(a);
RCW 49.78.220, .280. To safeguard this right, both the FMLA and WFLA prohibit
employers from discriminating and retaliating against employees who engage in protected
conduct. 1 The laws recognize two types of prohibited discrimination and retaliation.
First, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2) and RCW 49.78.300(1)(b), make it unlawful for an
employer “to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for
opposing any practice made unlawful by” the FMLA and WFLA. Second, 29 C.F.R.