 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nachiem v. State6/27/2005
imed disability. Nachiem also argues summary judgment was inappropriate because a jury could conclude that the Department did not 'reach out to engage in a give and take exchange' with her about her continuing need for this placement. This argument is unpersuasive. There was no need for any give and take exchange about what accommodation was necessary - Fircrest accommodated Nachiem's request not to work nights in its entirety.
Finally, Nachiem argues that the Department has not offered credible reasons for its failure to appoint her to the permanent position. She highlights the fact that this refusal occurred contemporaneously with the time that she began to engage in protected activity. She claims that management had ulterior motives for its refusal to appoint her to the permanent position. This argument does not relate to the claim of failure to accommodate. It is a restatement of her claim of retaliation by management for her participation in protected activities.
Nachiem suggests in passing that Anderson's animosity towards her created a hostile work environment that is actionable under the law against discrimination. But she has failed to develop this argument, and we will not address it here.
Because the record contains insufficient evidence to make out even a prima facie case of a failure to reasonably accommodate a disability, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment as to this claim.
42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 CLAIM
The Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, provides a cause of action for damages against any person, who, under color of law, deprives another of any right guaranteed under the constitution. In order to present a prima facie case of retaliation based on First Amendment rights, a public employee must demonstrate that the First Amendment protects the speech involved, and that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment decision. White v. State, 131 Wn.2d 1, 10, 929 P.2d 396 (1997).
Nachiem's complaint alleged that Dr. Singh, while acting under the color of law, 'was deliberately indifferent to clearly established policies promising fair, considerate and equal treatment, and the Plaintiff's constitutional rights, including the right to speak openly and publicly concerning Fircrest School's problems, her freedom to petition, and her rights to equal protection under the United States Constitution and federal law.'
In moving for summary judgment on Nachiem's claim under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the defendants argued that Nachiem had alleged 'no facts in the complaint specific to defendant Singh.' Nachiem's response to the motion for summary judgment provided no additional detail, but merely asserted that 'there are certainly sufficient facts alleged and inferred against Defendant Singh individually to merit proceeding on the claims against her in her individual capacity.'
In oral argument below, for the first time, Nachiem said the protected activity she was referring to was the complaints and grievances she filed: Under the First Amendment you're allowed to speak out about issues as recognized in Washington of substantial public importance. And in this case we have disabled people in a care facility that are only monitored by the nurses who are watching. When those nurses see something's wrong, they're entitled to speak up about it. They're entitled to file grievances, they are entitled to file complaints with the State. And they're entitled to say to their own supervisors, we need to do something about this guy, he's causing harm.
But even at oral argument, Nachiem did not identify which grievances were at issue, which portions of thos
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|