Kniffen v. East Wenatchee Water District
2:23-cv-00344
| E.D. Wash. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Brian Kniffen worked for the East Wenatchee Water District from 1993 to 2021, most recently as a Utility Field Inspector.
- Kniffen suffered a disabling on-the-job back injury in May 2019 and reinjured himself in June 2020, leading to ongoing work restrictions regarding lifting and twisting.
- He received accommodations temporarily (e.g., occasional help from another employee) but permanent accommodation requests became disputed.
- Kniffen was terminated in November 2021 after the District determined it could not accommodate his permanent restrictions without undue hardship.
- Plaintiff sued, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, failure to accommodate, and disability discrimination under the ADA and Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
- The matter came before the Court on the District’s motions for summary judgment and to exclude plaintiff’s expert witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy | Terminated for filing worker’s compensation claims | Termination unrelated to compensation claims | Dismissed—insufficient evidence of causation |
| Failure to accommodate (helper/sick leave) | Could perform essential functions with helper or leave | Permanent helper/leave not reasonable or required by law | Dismissed—those accommodations unreasonable or not raised |
| Failure to accommodate (equipment/reassignment) | Truck-mounted valve turner or reassignment not explored | Equipment too costly/useless; reassignment not required | Triable issues remain—summary judgment denied |
| Disability disparate treatment | Terminated because of disability and not due to inability | Termination was lawful due to inability to perform job | Triable issues remain—summary judgment denied |
| Expert witness exclusion | HR best practices expert testimony should be allowed | Expert usurps jury's role; provides legal conclusions | Testimony limited to HR practice explanations, not law |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and fact disputes standard)
- Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wash. 2d 931 (public policy wrongful discharge—Perritt framework)
- Martin v. Gonzaga Univ., 191 Wash. 2d 712 (burden-shifting for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy)
- Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877 (essential functions under ADA)
- Dunlap v. Liberty Nat. Products, Inc., 878 F.3d 794 (ADA/WLAD disability discrimination standards)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (disparate treatment burden-shifting)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (expert evidence admissibility standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (standard for expert evidence admissibility)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (limitations on expert testimony regarding legal conclusions)