Scott Iceberg, V. King County Metro Transit
87431-4
Wash. Ct. App.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Scott Iceberg, who suffers from ulcerative colitis, sued King County alleging discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) after being denied access to employee-only restrooms at Metro Transit facilities.
- Iceberg claimed that King County provides restroom facilities for employees but none for public transit patrons, forcing him to relieve himself in public on multiple occasions due to his disability.
- He requested an accommodation for restroom access but received no further response from King County.
- The trial court granted King County's motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6), finding Iceberg failed to state a claim under the WLAD.
- On appeal, Iceberg challenged only the dismissal of his WLAD claim, not the public nuisance or outrage claims.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the dismissal, finding no violation of WLAD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disparate treatment under WLAD | Denial of restroom access was discrimination based on disability | No public restrooms for any patrons; all treated equally | No disparate treatment; WLAD not violated |
| Obligation to accommodate disability | King County must accommodate his restroom needs due to his disability | WLAD does not require extra services beyond those for the general public | No requirement to provide extra accommodation |
| Employee-only restrooms as public accommodation | Employee restrooms should be accessible due to public need/disability | Employee-only areas are not public accommodations under the law | Employee restrooms not public accommodations under WLAD |
| Applicability of public accommodation provisions | Denial of employee restroom is unlawful refusal of public accommodation | Law only applies to areas open to the public, not employee-only sections | Only public sections are covered; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- FutureSelect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 954 (Wash. 2014) (standard for review of CR 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Tenore v. AT & T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 1998) (standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Wash. State Commc’n Access Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 173 Wn. App. 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (scope of public accommodation under WLAD and requirement for comparable services, not extra services)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (employee-only areas of mixed use facilities are not public accommodations)