823 F. Supp. 2d 1179
E.D. Wash.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Carmen and Douglas Donelson sue SJCC, a Providence Health & Services subsidiary, alleging WLAD, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act violations, plus a common-law wrongful discharge claim and loss of consortium.
- SJCC is a 162-bed, non-profit skilled nursing facility with a Catholic mission; it employs a chaplain, offers weekly services, and its logo includes a cross, but employees need not be Catholic and care for patients of any faith.
- Carmen Donelson was hired March 2009 as a Nursing Assistant Certified and bath aide under a 90-day probationary period; she could not take leave until probation ended under SJCC policy.
- June–July 2009: Donelson injures her finger, develops MRSA, undergoes surgery, and is placed on unpaid six-week medical leave after doctors’ notes; she is terminated July 20, 2009, with reinstatement left open if she returns within a year.
- Doctors’ letters extend leave; Donelson returns to work October 2009 but later declines to rejoin SJCC; PHS moves for summary judgment; the court grants in part, denies in part, and holds aspects in abeyance, and excludes the plaintiffs’ expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| WLAD religious exemption applicability | PHS loses exemption due to estoppel and non-religious purpose. | PHS is a religious organization; exemption applies to SJCC. | Exemption applies; estoppel not shown. |
| ADA claim viability and reasonable accommodation | Six-week unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation; she remained qualified. | Donelson was not a qualified individual during leave or leave was not reasonable. | Material facts preclude summary judgment; ADA claim survives. |
| Rehabilitation Act claim viability | Rehabilitation Act mirrors ADA rights; failure to reasonably accommodate. | Same defects as ADA claim; no federal funding shown. | Federal funding shown; Rehabilitation Act claim survives with factual questions. |
| Loss of consortium claim | Derives from underlying torts; should survive with other claims. | If other claims fail, consortium claim should fail too. | Denied; loss of consortium claim survives. |
| Certification of WLAD religious exemption constitutionality | Constitutional issues should be resolved by WA Supreme Court. | Court should certify the question for state resolution. | Court to consider certification; abeyance of WLAD claim pending ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farnam v. CRISTA Ministries, 116 Wash.2d 659 (1991) (religious exemption scope under WLAD; factors for religious organization)
- Hazen v. Catholic Credit Union, 37 Wash. App. 502 (1984) (early WLAD religious exemption principles; organizational ties)
- Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 1999) (ADA reasonable accommodation includes medical leave; qualified status analysis)
- Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986) (Article I, § 11 comparative to First Amendment Establishment Clause)
- Witters II, 112 Wash.2d 363 (1989) (state constitutional analysis for religion-related funding matters)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (clear and convincing standard for summary-judgment evidence; credibility not weighed)
- Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (gatekeeping reliability standard for all expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (reliability-based gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- Malyon v. Pierce County, 79 Wash. App. 452 (1995) (Gunwall/constitutional analysis in state context)