8 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Steele v. Lundgrengreen1 sentence2015See Steel v. Lundoreen. [ 96 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-Igreen1 sentence2019To prevail on a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must prove “that (1) the employee had a sensory, mental, or physical abnormality that substantially limited his or her ability to perform the job; (2) the employee was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question; (3) the employee gave the employer notice of the abnormality and its accompanying substantial limitations; and (4) upon notice, the employer failed to affirmatively adopt measures that were available to the employer and medically necessary to accommodate the abnormality.” Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-Igreen1 sentence2019To prevail on a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must prove “that (1) the employee had a sensory, mental, or physical abnormality that substantially limited his or her ability to perform the job; (2) the employee was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question; (3) the employee gave the employer notice of the abnormality and its accompanying substantial limitations; and (4) upon notice, the employer failed to affirmatively adopt measures that were available to the employer and medically necessary to accommodate the abnormality.” Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Microsoft Corp.
green
2 sentences2025Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521, 532 , 70 P.3d 126 (2003) (emphasis in original). 2019To prevail on a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must prove “that (1) the employee had a sensory, mental, or physical abnormality that substantially limited his or her ability to perform the job; (2) the employee was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question; (3) the employee gave the employer notice of the abnormality and its accompanying substantial limitations; and (4) upon notice, the employer failed to affirmatively adopt measures that were available to the employer and medically necessary to accommodate the abnormality.” Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Davis v. Microsoft Corp.
green
2 sentences2025Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521, 532 , 70 P.3d 126 (2003) (emphasis in original). 2019To prevail on a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must prove “that (1) the employee had a sensory, mental, or physical abnormality that substantially limited his or her ability to perform the job; (2) the employee was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question; (3) the employee gave the employer notice of the abnormality and its accompanying substantial limitations; and (4) upon notice, the employer failed to affirmatively adopt measures that were available to the employer and medically necessary to accommodate the abnormality.” Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 145 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004), abrogated on other grounds by Mikkelsen v. Pub. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 145 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004), abrogated on other grounds by Mikkelsen v. Pub. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sommer v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
1 sentence2017According to those unchallenged instructions, Washington had the burden to prove the following factors: (1) That he had an impairment that is medically recognizable r diagnosable or exists as a record or history; and (2) That either (a) he gave Group Health Cooperative notice of the impairment; or (b) no notice was required to be given because Group Health Cooperative knew about his impairment; and 25 Sommer v. Dep't of Soc. and Health Servs., 104 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Johnson v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Johnson v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 159 Wn. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Albright v. State
green
1 sentence2013Albright v. State. 65 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Joy v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
1 sentence2013Joy v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 170 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.