244 P.3d 438
Wash. Ct. App.2010Background
- Bruce Johnson, an African-American tanker driver for Chevron U.S.A., was injured on the job and sued for WLAD discrimination, including failure to accommodate.
- Chevron provided air-ride seats and repeatedly released Johnson to work without restriction after injuries; a proposed ergonomic lifting tool was treated as a potentially unsafe accommodation.
- Dr. Blair prescribed occasional use of the handmade lifting tool to assist with lifting; Chevron later refused to allow use of the tool as an accommodation.
- In 2005 Johnson sustained another back injury; subsequent medical opinions limited him to sedentary to light-medium work, complicating accommodation viability.
- Chevron obtained partial summary judgment dismissing Johnson’s accommodation claim in 2008; remaining claims went to trial and Chevron/Miller prevailed, leading to Johnson’s appellate challenge.
- The court reversed the summary-judgment ruling on accommodation and the trial instructions issues, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on accommodation was proper | Johnson argues accommodation existed and was legally required. | Chevron contends no substantial disability or medical necessity for accommodation. | Summary judgment improper; material issues remain for trial. |
| Scope of WLAD amendments affecting accommodation | Amendments retroactively redefine disability and accommodation triggers. | Pre-amendment standards apply; medical necessity controls. | Amendments apply retroactively to Johnson's pre- and post- amendment claims. |
| Jury instructions on disability/race claims | Disability/race claims require proof of substantial factor; comparator evidence is not required. | Pattern instructions requiring comparators were appropriate. | Instruction error; comparator element not required for WLAD discrimination claims. |
| Jury instructions on disparate treatment vs. accommodation | Johnson need not show comparator-based disparate treatment to prove discrimination. | Comparator-based framework was necessary for showing differential treatment. | Error in providing comparator-based framework; remand for new trial on all issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulcino v. Federal Express Corp., 141 Wash.2d 629 (2000) (defining reasonable accommodation and its connection to disability claims)
- Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wash.2d 172 (2001) (pre-2007 WLAD interpretations of disability and accommodation)
- Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wash.2d 138 (2004) (setting forth WLAD discrimination standards)
- Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wash.2d 521 (2003) (discrimination framework and jury instruction considerations)
- Blaney v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 151 Wash.2d 203 (2004) (summary judgment standards and standard of review in WLAD cases)