Tanya Nozawa, V State Of Wa Dept Of Corrections, 49091-9

Background

Nozawa (longtime DOC employee) had a Graphic Designer post eliminated in 2010 and accepted a CIPC position at Cedar Creek effective December 1, 2010; she filed a whistleblower complaint against a supervisor in late 2010.
In late Feb. 2011 Nozawa suffered a nonwork-related ankle injury and sought accommodations (light duty / reassignment away from inmates); she took intermittent paid and shared leave through late 2011.
DOC HR (Ruiz) initiated the reasonable accommodation process, sought medical information, and searched for temporary reassignments that were vacant, funded, near her pay grade, and for which she was qualified; DOC offered some lower‑paid office positions which Nozawa declined.
Key disputed events: March 14, 2011 withdrawal of permission to work in the administration building; April 19, 2011 meeting with superintendent; July–Dec. 2011 searches/offers for reassignments and shared leave approvals.
Procedural posture: Nozawa sued in June 2014 under the WLAD for failure to accommodate, disability disparate treatment, and whistleblower retaliation. DOC moved for summary judgment arguing statute of limitations and lack of triable issues; trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. Nozawa appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre‑April 28, 2011 acts are barred by the WLAD statute of limitations	Nozawa invoked the continuing‑violation doctrine to include pre‑limitations acts as part of ongoing conduct	DOC argued discrete acts are individually time‑barred and continuing‑violation doesn’t apply here	Court: Discrete acts (e.g., March 14 denial; April 19 meeting) are time‑barred; continuing‑violation doctrine inapplicable to these claims
Whether DOC failed to reasonably accommodate Nozawa’s temporary nonwork injury	Nozawa: DOC did not inform her of or offer all available vacancies and offered only lower‑paying positions	DOC: Engaged in accommodation process, provided leave, searched for vacant, funded, geographically appropriate positions for which she was qualified	Court: No genuine issue — DOC took reasonable steps; Nozawa failed to show she was qualified for other vacancies, so failure‑to‑accommodate claim fails
Whether there was an adverse employment action supporting disability disparate treatment	Nozawa: Failure to offer all positions and offering only lower‑paid jobs constituted adverse action	DOC: No adverse action — DOC actively sought reassignment options and offered positions; plaintiff declined some offers	Court: No genuine issue of material fact that an adverse action occurred; disparate treatment claim fails
Whether there was an adverse employment action supporting whistleblower retaliation	Nozawa: April 19 meeting, withdrawal of admin‑building work, and limited assignment offers evidence of retaliation	DOC: Those discrete acts are either time‑barred or not actionable adverse actions; remaining acts do not show retaliation	Court: April 19 and March 14 events time‑barred; remaining allegations fail to show an adverse employment action — retaliation claim fails

Key Cases Cited

York v. Wahkiakum Sch. Dist. No. 200, 163 Wn.2d 297 (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
Vallandigham v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 154 Wn.2d 16 (summary judgment standard; view facts favoring nonmoving party)
Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm’t Co., 106 Wn.2d 1 (nonmovant may not rely on speculation to resist summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Hill v. BCTI Income Fund‑I, 144 Wn.2d 172 (application of McDonnell Douglas under WLAD)
Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138 (elements for failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
Antonius v. King County, 153 Wn.2d 256 (discrete acts start statute‑of‑limitations clock)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (distinction between discrete acts and continuing hostile work environment)
Griffith v. Boise Cascade, Inc., 111 Wn. App. 436 (what constitutes reasonable accommodation via reassignment)
Doe v. Boeing Co., 121 Wn.2d 8 (employee not entitled to accommodation of choice)