Victor Terence Washington v. Group Health Cooperative, 73847-0

Background

Victor Washington, hired as a probationary network engineer at Group Health in April 2012, unilaterally adjusted his start/stop schedule and later sought to keep the adjusted hours citing medical appointments and heart issues.
Supervisor Jim Sims asked Washington to revert to the original schedule; discussions became contentious and Washington emailed supervisors about his medical condition.
Sims consulted HR and terminated Washington the next day; the termination memo cited argumentative behavior, refusal to follow processes, missed meetings, and refusal to work hired hours.
Washington sued under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate; the jury returned verdicts for Group Health on both claims.
Washington moved pro se for a new trial alleging the verdict was contrary to the evidence and that opposing counsel committed prejudicial misconduct; the trial court denied the motion and judgment was entered.
On appeal, Washington challenged the denial of the new-trial motion and various trial errors; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Washington failed to preserve some misconduct claims and that substantial evidence supported the jury verdicts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disability discrimination (was disability a substantial factor in termination?)	Washington argued he had a disability (sarcoidosis/other conditions) and that termination was motivated substantially by it.	Group Health argued it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (performance, argumentative conduct, schedule refusal) that motivated termination.	Court held substantial evidence supported jury finding for Group Health; plaintiff failed to prove discrimination or pretext.
Failure to accommodate (did employer have notice and fail to reasonably accommodate?)	Washington claimed he gave notice (conversations, HR contact, email) and needed schedule accommodation.	Group Health argued it lacked adequate notice and thus no duty to accommodate; the demographic form was not marked.	Court held plaintiff failed to prove notice; jury could credit employer testimony that notice was not given.
Pretext (were employer's reasons unworthy of belief?)	Washington pointed to lack of prior negative ratings, sparse documentation, proximity of termination to accommodation request, and timing after email.	Group Health relied on testimony and termination memo showing behavior-based reasons; argued timing alone did not prove pretext.	Court held evidence supported employer reasons as credible; speculation insufficient to show pretext.
Counsel misconduct (did opposing counsel’s statements justify new trial?)	Washington alleged prejudicial remarks in opening, cross-exam, and closing and argued counsel’s conduct warranted new trial.	Group Health and the court noted many complaints were not objected to at trial and thus unpreserved; contested conduct was not flagrant.	Court refused to reach unpreserved misconduct claims and denied relief for lack of contemporaneous objections and absence of flagrant misconduct.

Key Cases Cited

Harrell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 170 Wn. App. 386 (discussing finality and standards for new trial)
Mears v. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403, 182 Wn. App. 919 (standard for reviewing CR 59(a)(7) challenges)
McCleary v. State, 173 Wn.2d 477 (substantial evidence / standard of review principles)
Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138 (framework for WLAD discrimination and burden shifting)
Scrivener v. Clark Coll., 181 Wn.2d 439 (pretext standards and discrimination proof)
Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 178 Wn. App. 850 (discussion of pretext and credibility)
Sommer v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 104 Wn. App. 160 (elements of failure-to-accommodate claim and notice requirement)
Goodman v. Boeing Co., 127 Wn.2d 401 (employer’s duty to inquire arises after employee notice)
Miller v. Kenny, 180 Wn. App. 772 (distinguishing aggressive advocacy from misconduct)