Washington Court Upholds Dismissal of Disability Discrimination Claim Because Employee Failed to Cooperate in Interactive Process 

NOTE: This is a summary of an unpublished opinion, which holds no precedential value. 

The Washington Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of a disability claim based on the plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the interactive process.  

Under Washington and federal law, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee with a disability unless the accommodation would pose an undue hardship. A disability is broadly defined—broader even than under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and can cover even temporary conditions. A reasonable accommodation enables the employee to perform essential functions of their job that they otherwise would not be able to because of their disability. 

In order to accommodate, the employer and employee must engage in an “interactive process.” The interactive process is an exchange of information to match the employee’s capabilities with available positions. The case is an extreme example of how lengthy (1.5 years!) and demanding the interactive process can be. 

THE BACKGROUND 

RILEY V. CITY OF TACOMA (2025)

The plaintiff, a former mechanic for the fire department, sued the City for disability discrimination. The opinion details the protracted back-and-forth interactive process, which is “briefly” summarized below: 

• The employee suffered from numerous health problems, including obesity, fatigue, mood swings, and irritability. The employee began reporting to the City that he was having interpersonal problems with co-workers at the fire garage. 
• The employee asked for a workplace accommodation to be transferred to another worksite. 
• The City provided medical questionnaires to be completed. The employee’s healthcare providers completed the questionnaires and indicated that current work conflicts were causing health issues, and issues would cease if the employee could perform work duties in a “safe and healthy environment.” 
• The providers did not specify whether the employee could or could not perform his essential function without accommodation. They also did not definitely state he could not continue to work at the worksite. 
• The City transferred the employee to another work site for 1.5 months. At the conclusion of the temporary transfer, the employee was returned to the fire garage.  
• The employee sought another accommodation. The City asked for updated medical information, including “medical documentation explaining the functional limitations of [the employee’s] ability to perform the essential functions of his position.” 
• The employee refused to submit any new medical documentation, insisting the City rely on the previously-submitted documents.  
• For four months, the City pursued the employee for updated medical documentation and clarification on which essential functions needed accommodation. The employee did not respond. The City closed the accommodation request. 
• The employee’s health problems persisted, including multiple trips to the hospital for anxiety, and his provider sent multiple letters to the City stating that he needed to be placed into an alternative work environment for his own health and safety.  
• However, neither the employee nor his providers returned the City’s medical questionnaires. 
• An independent medical examination (IME) was conducted, and the examiner approved the employee to return to his original job without limitation or accommodation. 
• The provider sent additional letters, stating definitively that the employee could not work at the garage at all and needed to avoid all encounters with the co-workers that triggered the stress events. 
• The employee was hospitalized (for the 7th time) and sent another note from the emergency room provider, stating he required a transfer. 
• The City, again, requested the medical questionnaire be completed, explaining that working in the fire garage required interaction with other employees. No fire mechanic positions were available at any other location. The employee did not respond and was terminated. 
• The trial court found that the employee’s discrimination claim fails because he did not cooperate in the interactive process. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

• Employers can ask the employee to provide medical information about their disability and how it limits the employee’s ability to perform essential functions to evaluate whether an accommodation can be granted. 
• Employees are required to continue to communicate with the employer and supply the necessary information. 
• Medical conditions can change. The employee failed to respond to the City’s request for updated medical questionnaires.  
• Employers can require that the medical information show the “nexus” between the medical condition and the need for accommodation. Here, the employee’s provider sent twelve (!) letters. The Court held they were, nonetheless, insufficient because they focused on the employee’s relationships with co-workers and did not show the nexus. 

CONCLUSION 

• While the case is unpublished, it demonstrates how demanding the interactive process can be. It is important to have a strong understanding of how to navigate it and not make premature conclusions.  
• Throughout the 1.5 years and tens of correspondence, the employer properly focused the inquiry on the main question: what accommodation was necessary to allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the job? 
• The interactive process can be a real legal quagmire. If you have any questions or want to know how the experienced employment attorneys at the Rocke Law Group can assist you with these and other employment issues, please contact our office.