Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.
180 Wash. 2d 481
| Wash. | 2014Background
- Four Gate Gourmet employees sued as a class under Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) alleging the employer’s security-driven meal policy (employees may not bring or leave to obtain food; employer provides meals) forced them to either eat food that violated their religious beliefs or go without food.
- Plaintiffs alleged Gate Gourmet misrepresented vegetarian options, previously switched meat types then reverted without notice, refused requested accommodations, and that deception or forced contact with forbidden food caused distress and offensive touching.
- Claims: failure to reasonably accommodate religion under WLAD, disparate impact under WLAD, and common-law battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
- The trial court granted defendant’s CR 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed all claims, relying on Short v. Battle Ground School Dist. for the view that WLAD contains no accommodation duty. Plaintiffs obtained direct review.
- The Washington Supreme Court reviewed de novo, analyzed statutory interpretation and federal analogues (Title VII, Griggs disparate impact), and reversed dismissal on all major claims, holding WLAD implies a duty to reasonably accommodate religious practices and that plaintiffs had pleaded viable claims for accommodation, disparate impact, battery, and NIED (pleading-stage).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WLAD requires employers to reasonably accommodate religious practices | WLAD’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of creed implies the same accommodation duty recognized under Title VII (and earlier EEOC rules) | WLAD lacks an express accommodation mandate; legislature/HRC silence shows no such duty (Short) | WLAD implies a religious accommodation duty; Short’s reasoning disapproved — state law should be construed to effect WLAD purposes and federal precedents are persuasive |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim at pleading stage | Plaintiffs allege sincere beliefs, notified employer, and were deceived/refused accommodations causing threatened/actual discriminatory treatment | Gate Gourmet argued plaintiffs failed to plead required elements and that WLAD doesn’t reach accommodations | Plaintiffs pleaded the prima facie elements (sincere belief; notice; threatened/actual discriminatory treatment); dismissal reversed; employer may assert defenses (reasonable accommodation, undue hardship) later |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a disparate-impact claim under WLAD | The neutral meal policy disproportionately burdens adherents of certain religions | Gate Gourmet did not meaningfully contest disparate-impact pleading at trial level | Court reversed dismissal — WLAD supports disparate-impact claims; plaintiffs pleaded a neutral practice with disproportionate effect |
| Battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims | Alleged deceptive conduct caused offensive contact (eating forbidden food) and emotional harm; seeking leave to develop objective symptomatology in discovery | Gate Gourmet contended plaintiffs failed to allege contact, force, intent (battery), and did not plead objective medical symptoms (NIED) | Battery claim survives pleading stage: alleged deception producing offensive, unconsented contact states a claim. NIED dismissal reversed at pleading stage but plaintiffs must ultimately prove duty, breach, proximate cause, damage, and objective symptomatology in discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Hiatt v. Walker Chevrolet Co., 120 Wn.2d 57 (1992) (discussed Title VII analogues and left open whether WLAD implies accommodation duty)
- Short v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 169 Wn. App. 188 (2012) (Court of Appeals held WLAD does not require religious accommodation; disapproved by majority)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (established disparate-impact theory under Title VII)
- Fahn v. Cowlitz County, 93 Wn.2d 368 (1980) (adopted Griggs reasoning under WLAD; supported disparate-impact enforcement)
- Holland v. Boeing Co., 90 Wn.2d 384 (1978) (recognized reasonable-accommodation requirement in disability context under WLAD)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (Supreme Court’s undue-hardship standard for religious accommodation)
- Berry v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 447 F.3d 642 (9th Cir. 2006) (examples of prima facie elements and adverse-action analysis in religious accommodation claims)
- McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wn.2d 96 (2010) (pleading-stage standard for CR 12(b)(6) reviewed de novo)