By: Jim Cline & Harrison Owens
In Brownell v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1, a Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a former public utility employee’s disability discrimination lawsuit. In his complaint, the worker claimed that he was terminated for violation of work rules that were selectively enforced against him. The Court of Appeals found that the selective enforcement of the rules and lack of negative performance reviews showed that the worker may have a valid claim for disability discrimination. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the worker’s claim and allowed him to bring his claim to trial.
Donald Brownell worked for the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) for many years, including eight years as a Hydro-Electric Operator. Brownell’s job involved operating and maintaining dam equipment, which occasionally required physical labor.
During his employment, Brownell was diagnosed with three disabilities. In 1990, he was diagnosed with Myasthenia Gravis, a neurological disease that causes occasional but progressive weakness and abnormal fatiguing of skeletal muscles. In 2002, Brownell severely injured his right arm in a chainsaw accident, which weakened his right hand. In 2005, Brownell was diagnosed with hearing loss. Individuals who have also developed disabilities due to work accidents may hire a social security disability lawyer. A social security disability attorney can help seek compensation and other benefits they are entitled to. Whether you’re just beginning to pursue social security disability benefits or you’ve already applied and been rejected, a social security disability lawyer is an essential person to have on your side.
After Brownell recovered from the chainsaw incident in 2002, his doctor cleared him to return to his job and perform all duties. However, the PUD decided to limit some of his physical duties. Despite the limitations, Brownell’s immediate supervisor frequently assigned him labor-intensive work, and responded sarcastically when he was unable to complete the work as quickly as the supervisor demanded.
Brownell received several written warnings during his time as an employee, and was once suspended for four days. He was terminated in 2010 after he accidentally “dewater[ed] part of a stream.” The notice of termination stated that this incident and an “ongoing pattern of poor performance and lack of good judgment” were the causes of his termination.
Brownell filed a lawsuit in response to his termination, claiming that PUD had discriminated against him due to his disabilities. Brownell claimed that PUD had violated his rights by treating him differently than other employees despite performing satisfactorily. The trial court dismissed his case because it found that he did not offer enough evidence to show that he had been discriminated against and because PUD offered a non-discriminatory reason for terminating him.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s dismissal of Brownell’s claim of disability discrimination. The Court of Appeals found that Brownell provided enough evidence to show he had a claim for disability discrimination that should go to trial. Brownell and PUD agreed that he was disabled, had suffered adverse employment action when he was terminated, and had been replaced by a non-disabled employee.
The Court of Appeals found that Brownell provided enough evidence to show that he was doing satisfactory work and the discipline he received was due to selective enforcement. Brownell alleged that, although he did violate several rules, other employees were not disciplined for similar violations. Also, the PUD did not conduct performance reviews of its union employees, and PUD destroyed Brownell’s supervisor’s notes on his performance after he was terminated. Finally, the PUD did not offer a convincing non-discriminatory reason for Brownell’s termination to convince the Court of Appeals that his termination was definitely not due to disability discrimination.
In summary, the Court of Appeals concluded that Brownell established a valid case of disability discrimination that should be heard at trial. The Court of Appeals found that Brownell was disabled, he had suffered adverse employment action, his supervisors treated him differently than other employees when enforcing the rules, and he was replaced by a non-disabled employee. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and allowed Brownell to continue with his claim of disability discrimination to trial.
An employer who selectively enforces its policies is subject to a discrimination complaint if it only enforces its policies against a disabled employee, but not non-disabled employees.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Disability Discrimination. **
