James A. Kuehn v. Snohomish County ( 2015 )

5 i M - *- •' '*"''"'
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
JAMES A. KUEHN, No. 71743-0-1
Appellant, DIVISION ONE
v.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, UNPUBLISHED
Respondent. FILED: April 6. 2015
Cox, J. — A cause of action for wrongful termination in discrimination
cases accrues when notice of termination is communicated to the employee.1
Likewise, a cause of action for disability discrimination accrues when the
employer makes a decision not to accommodate the employee's disability and
communicates that decision to the employee.2 Here, Snohomish County
informed James Kuehn, in writing, by letters dated and received on August 2,
2007, that he was discharged as of the date specified. These letters provided
reasons for this action and communicated the County's decision not to
accommodate Kuehn's disability. His failure to commence this action within
1 See Douchette v. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403, 117 Wash. 2d 805, 816, 818
P.2d 1362 (1991) (citing Del. State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 101 S. Ct. 498,
66 L Ed. 2d 431 (1980)).
2 Hintz v. Kitsap County. 92 Wash. App. 10, 16, 960 P.2d 946 (1998);
Hinman v. Yakima Sch. Dist. No. 7. 69 Wash. App. 445, 449, 850 P.2d 536 (1993);
Albright v. State. 65 Wash. App. 763, 767, 829 P.2d 1114 (1992).
No. 71743-0-1/2
three years of this date bars the claims that he asserts. Accordingly, we affirm
the summary judgment of dismissal that the trial court granted to Snohomish
County.
Kuehn began working for Snohomish County in 1991. In 1993, he started
work as a Road Maintenance Worker, and he continued to work in the Road
Maintenance Division until his termination in 2007.
In 1999, Kuehn informed the County that he suffered from a sleep disorder
that affected his ability to arrive at work on time on a regular basis. He requested
various accommodations, which the County granted. The County notified Kuehn
that it would excuse tardiness that was directly related to his medical condition.
Any tardiness or absence that was not directly related to his medical condition
would be subject to discipline.
In 2002, the County determined that Kuehn's medical condition qualified
him for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. By letter, it informed Kuehn
that he had to notify the County, in writing, when his tardiness or absence was for
medical reasons. The County reminded Kuehn that under this accommodation
plan, he had "not been granted unlimited permission to be late to or absent from
work at any time [or] for any reason."3 The letter also stated, "Absences or
tardiness unrelated to [Kuehn's] medical condition will be subject to the Division's
no fault policy . . . of which [Kuehn is] on notice."4 And it reiterated, "Unexcused
3 Clerk's Papers at 50 (emphasis omitted).
4 Id.
No. 71743-0-1/3
absences or late arrivals will be treated in accordance with County and Division
policy . . . and shall be subject to discipline, up to and including termination."5
Under the Road Maintenance Division tardiness policy, unexcused
tardiness is a ground for discipline as follows:
a. First instance, documented verbal reprimand.
b. Second instance, written reprimand.
c. Third instance, one day off with no pay.
d. Fourth instance, one week off with no pay.
e. Fifth instance, one month off with no pay.
f. Sixth instance, termination.[6]
By early 2007, Kuehn had several unexcused instances of tardiness. In
January 2007, the County imposed discipline against Kuehn for another instance
of tardiness. In accordance with the tardiness policy, it imposed a one week
suspension without pay.
On June 13, 2007, Kuehn called in late for work. The County held a pre-
disciplinary hearing on June 18. In response to the allegations against him,
Kuehn told the County that he had slept through his alarms. He did not state that
his tardiness was linked in any way to his medical condition. Nonetheless, the
County stated that "the information previously provided to the County indicates a
potential connection" and it decided to hold the disciplinary decision in abeyance
in order to allow Kuehn to provide any additional information.7 The County told
5 id, at 51.
6 id at 53.
7 Id. at 125.
No. 71743-0-1/4
Kuehn to provide any information "not later than July 16, 2007" as the County
would make its determination "at that time."8
On June 27, 2007, Kuehn again called in late for work. The County held a
pre-disciplinary hearing on July 9. In response to the allegations against him,
Kuehn said he slept through his alarms and his wake up call. The County's
investigation determined that Kuehn did not hear his wake up call because other
occupants in his home had removed his phone from his bedroom. Kuehn
corroborated this at the hearing.
On July 10, 2007, the County received a facsimile from Kuehn's medical
provider stating that Kuehn was scheduled for additional medical testing on July
17. It indicated that further paperwork would be forwarded to the County after
the tests were completed, and it asked the County to allow two weeks for the
results. Kuehn's supervisor testified in his declaration that the County extended
the deadline to July 31, 2007, but it did not receive any additional information
from Kuehn or his medical providers before August 2, 2007.
On August 2, 2007, the County sent, and Kuehn received, two letters.
One letter contained the results of his June 18, 2007 pre-disciplinary hearing.
The other contained the results of his July 9, 2007 pre-disciplinary hearing.
With respect to the June 18, 2007 hearing, the County determined that
Kuehn violated the tardiness policy and that this was his fifth instance of
Id.
No. 71743-0-1/5
tardiness. It found no mitigating factors. The County imposed a one month
suspension beginning August 6, 2007 for this violation.
With respect to the July 9, 2007 hearing, the County determined that
Kuehn violated the tardiness policy and that this was his sixth instance of
tardiness. It found no mitigating factors. The County imposed termination for
this violation. This letter stated that Kuehn's termination was effective on August
16, 2007 and that he would be on paid administrative leave until that date. This
letter also stated, "Please note that due to the discipline imposed herein, I am
holding in abeyance the discipline imposed with regard to your fifth instance of
tardiness, per the Road Maintenance Division Tardiness Policy for the instance
of tardiness on June 13, 2007."9
Kuehn filed two grievances in response to these disciplinary actions. He
also provided a letter from his doctor dated August 16, 2007 that related to his
most recent appointment. The County held a step one grievance meeting on
August 20, 2007. Kuehn's representative argued that the County should have
allowed more time for Kuehn's healthcare providers to provide information before
making a disciplinary determination, that Kuehn was not responsible for the
mishandling of documents by his doctor, and that the doctor's August 16 letter
should be taken into consideration. The County denied the grievances.
The County held a step two grievance meeting on October 1, 2007. After
this meeting, Kuehn provided additional documents from his doctor, which were
9 id. at 134 (emphasis omitted).
No. 71743-0-1/6
dated October 1, 2007. By letter dated November 2, 2007, the County denied
Kuehn's step two grievances. It found that Kuehn, alone, was responsible to see
that requests for information were returned in a timely manner, and it found that
Kuehn ignored every deadline. The County also found that the paperwork it
received from Kuehn's doctor did "not provide any new information that bears on
the merits of the grievances."10 The letter stated:
Nothing in the information belatedly provided by [Kuehn's doctor]
suggests that either instance of tardiness was caused by [Kuehn's]
medical condition. To the contrary, I understand the information to
state that [Kuehn's] medical condition is well-regulated by effective
treatment and that [he] [is] not operating under any medical
restrictions. This is consistent with the limited information [Kuehn]
provided during the initial pre-disciplinary hearings and follow-up
communications with respect to the June 13 and June 27 instances
of tardiness. At no time did [Kuehn] state that [his] tardiness was
caused by [his] medical condition despite numerous opportunities
to do so. Based upon all of the information before me, I find that
there is no connection.111]
The County held a step three grievance hearing on November 6, 2007. It
denied the grievances and upheld Kuehn's termination.
Kuehn commenced this action more than three years after August 2,
2007, the date on which he received the two letters. He alleged that the County
violated Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and Washington's
Family Leave Act by failing to reasonably accommodate his disabilities and by
wrongfully terminating him for conduct resulting from his disabilities. Neither side
disputes that Kuehn's complaint was filed on October 13, 2010.
10 id, at 213.
11 Id.
No. 71743-0-1/7
The County moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of
limitation on these claims had run before filing. The trial court granted this
motion.
Kuehn appeals.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Kuehn argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his claims against the
County based on the statute of limitations. We disagree.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of
material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.12
The court must consider all facts submitted and all reasonable inferences from
those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.13 This court
reviews de novo the grant or denial of summary judgment.14
The statute of limitations for actions involving discrimination under RCW
49.60.180 is three years.15
Wrongful Termination
Kuehn argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed his wrongful
termination claim based on the statute of limitations. Because he filed this action
more than three years after the claim accrued, we disagree.
12 CR 56(c).
13 Douchette. 117 Wash. 2d at 809.
14 Tiffany Family Trust Corp. v. City of Kent, 155 Wash. 2d 225, 230, 119
P.3d 325 (2005).
15 Douchette. 117 Wash. 2d at 809.
No. 71743-0-1/8
In Douchette v. Bethel School District, our supreme court considered
when a claim for wrongful discharge accrued.16 In that case, Alberta Douchette
collapsed on the job in January 1983 as a result of what she alleged were
intolerable working conditions.17 Douchette submitted a letter of resignation to
the school board on February 16, 1983.18 In her letter, she stated that her
resignation was to be effective March 15, 1983.19 Douchette intended to return
to work but was unable to do so.20 On March 17, 1986, Douchette brought
claims of wrongful discharge, age discrimination in violation of both state and
federal law, violation of her civil rights, and the tort of outrage.21
The District moved to dismiss Douchette's claims, arguing that because
Douchette filed her action more than three years after termination of her
employment, her claims were all time-barred.22 The trial court found that there
were material questions of fact as to the date on which the causes of action
16 117 Wash. 2d 805, 815, 818 P.2d 1362 (1991).
17 id, at 807.
18ld,
19 id,
20 id,
21 id, at 808.
22 id,
8
No. 71743-0-1/9
accrued, and it denied the District's motion.23 Division Two of this court granted
discretionary review and reversed.24 The supreme court affirmed Division Two.25
The supreme court rejected Douchette's argument that her wrongful
discharge claim did not accrue until the effective date of her letter of
resignation—March 15, 1983.26 It cited and briefly discussed Delaware State
College v. Ricks, a United States Supreme Court case.27 It stated that in Ricks.
"[T]he Supreme Court held that claims for employment discrimination accrue
when notice of termination is communicated to the employee."28 And it quoted
the Supreme Court's reasoning, that "'[m]ere continuity of employment, without
more, is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action for employment
discrimination.'"29 Additionally, it cited another United States Supreme Court
Case, Chardon v. Fernandez, which held that the applicable statute of limitation
began running on the date respondents received letters notifying them their
employment would terminate at some future date.30
23 id,
24 id,
25 id,
26 id, at 815.
27 Id, at 816 (citing Del. State Coll. v. Ricks. 449 U.S. 250, 101 S. Ct. 498,
66 L Ed. 2d 431 (1980)).
28 id,
29 id, (quoting Ricks. 449 U.S. at 257).
30 id, (citing Chardon v. Fernandez. 454 U.S. 6, 102 S. Ct. 28, 70 L. Ed. 2d
6(1981)).
9
No. 71743-0-1/10
After citing these cases, the supreme court concluded that Douchette's
claim accrued on February 15, 1983.31 Notably, in a footnote, the supreme court
stated, "We find persuasive the Supreme Court's ruling that the discharge of an
employee is effective the date the employer communicates notice of termination
(or intent to terminate at a specific date), to the employee."32
In this case, the trial court properly relied on Douchette when it concluded
that the termination became actionable on August 2, 2007. Kuehn admits in his
declaration that he received two letters "shortly before the end of [his] shift on
August 2, 2007," and he further admits that the second letter informed him that
he "would be terminated on August 16, 2007."33 Under Douchette. Kuehn's
discharge was effective on August 2, 2007, which was when the County
communicated its notice of intent to terminate Kuehn at a specific date.
In sum, Kuehn's wrongful termination claim accrued on August 2, 2007
and expired on August 2, 2010. Because he did not commence this action within
the applicable three-year period, his claim for wrongful discharge is barred.
Kuehn argues that the limitations period for wrongful discharge cases
does not always commence on the date the employer communicates its intent to
terminate the employee. He argues that the Douchette court specifically declined
to rule on the issue, and he quotes the following language from that opinion:
31 id,
32 id, at 816 n.9.
33 Clerk's Papers at 217.
10
No. 71743-0-1/11
We note that in a claim for constructive discharge, the date may be
the date the employee gives notice to the employer or the last day
of actual employment. Because we do not decide the issue of
whether an employee has a common law claim for constructive
discharge ... in addition to the statutory remedy, we do not decide
the date on which such a claim accrues. Our holding today is
limited to the facts of the case.[34]
The plain language of this passage shows that the supreme court did not reach
the question when a cause of action for constructive discharge accrues. This is
not such an action. Thus, this passage is inapposite to the question before us.
Kuehn argues that the statute of limitations began to run, at the earliest,
on August 16, 2007 because that was the effective date of his termination. But
this argument directly conflicts with Douchette and the United States Supreme
Court cases it cited. Under those case, mere continuity of employment does not
prolong the life of an employment discrimination claim.35
Kuehn argues that "discriminatory acts continuing until or occurring at the
time of actual termination extend commencement of the limitations period on
wrongful discharge claims to the actual date oftermination."36 But Kuehn does
not explain what discriminatory acts continued until or occurred at the time of
actual termination. And he cites no relevant authority to support this argument.
We reject it.
34 Douchette. 117 Wash. 2d at 816 n.9.
35 id, at 816; Ricks, 449 U.S. at 257.
36 Appellant's Reply Brief at 2.
11
No. 71743-0-1/12
Accommodation Claim
Kuehn argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed his
accommodation claim based on the statute of limitations. We again disagree.
A cause of action for disability discrimination accrues when the employer
makes a decision not to accommodate the employee's disability and
communicates that decision to the employee.37 "At that time, the facts to support
a discrimination claim become apparent to a reasonably prudent person."38
Here, the parties agree that the cause of action accrues when the decision
not to accommodate the disability is communicated to the employee. But the
parties disagree about when that occurred in this case.
The County argues that it communicated its decision not to accommodate
Kuehn's disability on August 2, 2007, when Kuehn received two disciplinary
hearing results letters informing him that his fifth and sixth instances of tardiness
would not be excused. Kuehn, on the other hand, argues that the County
communicated the decision not to accommodate his disability on November 2,
2007. This latter date is when the County denied his grievances and stated that
the new medical information from his doctor did not show a connection between
his tardiness and his medical condition.
We conclude that the County is correct. The County clearly
communicated its decision not to accommodate Kuehn's disability on August 2,
37 Hintz. 92 Wash. App. at 16; Hinman. 69 Wash. App. at 449; Albright. 65 Wn.
App. at 767.
38 Hinman. 69 Wash. App. at 450.
12
No. 71743-0-1/13
2007. That is when it informed Kuehn that it was disciplining him for his two June
2007 instances of tardiness. The discipline letters each state that Kuehn had
been found to have violated the tardiness policy, that discipline was being
imposed, and that there were no mitigating factors to consider in imposing
discipline.
Prior to this date, Kuehn was aware of his accommodation plan, under
which the County would excuse instances of tardiness caused by his medical
condition but would not excuse instances of tardiness unrelated to his medical
condition. The County's imposition of discipline on August 2, 2007 indicated its
decision not to accommodate Kuehn's disability for these instances of tardiness.
At that time, the facts to support a discrimination claim become apparent to a
reasonably prudent person. That is when a cause of action accrues under the
cases we previously cited in this opinion.
Kuehn disagrees that the County communicated its denial of Kuehn's
accommodation on August 2, 2007. He argues that the County did not reference
or acknowledge his accommodation request in its August 2, 2007 letters and that
the letters were "silent" about accommodation. But due to Kuehn's knowledge of
how his accommodation plan worked, this argument is unpersuasive.
Kuehn asserts that the County told him it would not make a decision about
discipline until it received his medical information. But the County provided a
specific deadline for submitting additional medical information, and Kuehn failed
to comply with it. Moreover, the August 2, 2007 letters unambiguously indicate
that the County made a decision about discipline.
13
No. 71743-0-1/14
Kuehn argues that at a minimum, a genuine issue of material fact exists
regarding when the County communicated its denial. He relies on Hintz v. Kitsap
County.39 In that case, Kitsap County terminated Paul Hintz on September 3,
1992 after Hintz was injured and efforts to reassign him to other tasks failed.40
Hintz subsequently filed a letter of complaint with the Kitsap County Risk
Management Office, which referred the letter to the prosecutor's office.41 In a
letter dated September 1, 1993, a deputy prosecuting attorney informed Hintz
that the laws requiring employers to accommodate employees with disabilities
did not apply to him.42 On appeal, Hintz claimed that there was a genuine issue
of material fact as to the running of the three-year limitations period for his
disability discrimination claim.43 He relied on the prosecutor's letter to argue that
the cause of action accrued on September 1, 1993.44 Division Two stated that
the prosecutor's letter met "the conditions for accrual" and that Hintz's cause of
action accrued, at the latest, on September 1, 1993.45
39 Appellant's Reply Brief at 7-8 (citing Hintz. 92 Wash. App. at 10).
40 Hintz. 92 Wash. App. at 11.
41 id,
42 id,
43 id, at 16.
44 id,
45 id,
14
No. 71743-0-1/15
Kuehn compares this case to Hintz and argues, "Like the prosecutor's
September 1, 1993 letter to Hintz, the County's November 2, 2007 memo to Mr.
Kuehn in the present case was the latest communication from the County .. .
informing [Kuehn] of the County's position that there was no connection between
his disability and his absenteeism, and that the County was standing by its
decision to terminate his employment."46
But Hintz did not expressly hold that there was a genuine issue of material
fact as to the date of accrual. Nor did it hold that the "latest communication" was
relevant to determining the date of accrual. Moreover, Hintz is distinguishable
from this case. There are no facts in Hintz indicating that Kitsap County clearly
communicated the denial of the accommodation prior to the letter from the
prosecutor. Here, in contrast, the County clearly communicated its denial of
Kuehn's accommodation request on August 2, 2007. For these reasons,
Kuehn's reliance on Hintz is not persuasive.
In sum, we reject Kuehn's argument that he did not know all the facts
necessary to discover his accommodation claim as of August 2, 2007. The later
interactions between the parties do not diminish the fact that he knew on this
date all that he needed to know for purposes of accrual of this claim.
Kuehn next makes several arguments that the County had an ongoing
duty to accommodate him.
46 Appellant's Reply Brief at 8.
15
No. 71743-0-1/16
Kuehn argues that the trial court erred by not recognizing the significance
of the County's admission that it continued to interact with him after it sent him
the termination notice, and he asserts, "During this 'interactive' process, the
[County's] duty to accommodate [Kuehn] continued."47 He also relies on
Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass'n to argue that employers must engage in
the interactive process in good faith.48 In Humphrey, the employee was
terminated after an initial accommodation attempt failed, and the Ninth Circuit
held that "the duty to accommodate 'is a continuing duty that is not exhausted by
one effort.'"49
But Kuehn's discussion of the "interactive process" and his reliance on
Humphrey are misplaced. Kuehn's claim is not that the initial accommodation
attempt failed, and he does not appear to dispute the effectiveness of the
established accommodation plan. Rather, Kuehn appears to dispute whether the
two June instances of tardiness should be excused under that plan. Kuehn does
not argue that the County should have explored further methods of
accommodation, and Kuehn did not ask for different accommodation. Further,
Kuehn was discharged for disciplinary reasons.
Moreover, the relevant question here is not when the duty to
accommodate ends but rather, when the statute of limitation accrues. Kuehn
47 Appellant's Opening Brief at 17-18.
48 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001).
49 id, at 1138 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting McAlindin v.
County of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999)).
16
No. 71743-0-1/17
fails to explain how the issues of whether the County had an ongoing duty to
accommodate, or whether it violated this duty, are relevant to this inquiry.
In a similar argument, Kuehn contends that the duty to accommodate may
continue even after termination. To support this proposition, he primarily relies
on Phillips v. City of Seattle50 and Wheeler v. Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle.51
In Phillips, the city terminated Bryce Phillips's employment for excessive
absenteeism caused by his alcoholism.52 After Phillips was discharged, he
entered a treatment program and requested that the city hold his position open
pending completion of the program.53 The city refused, and Phillips sued the city
for failing to reasonably accommodate his disability.54 The supreme court stated,
"It is a jury question whether the employer's actions constituted a reasonable
accommodation or whether the employee's requests would have placed an
undue burden on the employer."55
In Wheeler, this court examined Phillips and concluded:
[T]he period of time [that] the duty of accommodation continues
after termination should not be imposed as a matter of law.
Certainly, there is no statutory or regulatory authority indicating that
the duty terminates upon termination of the employment
50 111 Wash. 2d 903, 766 P.2d 1099 (1989).
51 65 Wash. App. 552, 829 P.2d 196 (1992), rev'd on other grounds. 124
Wash. 2d 634 (1994).
52 Phillips. 111 Wash. 2d at 905.
53 id,
54 Id,
55 Id. at 911.
17
No. 71743-0-1/18
relationship or at any particular time thereafter. Rather, it is for the
trier of fact to decide at what point continued attempts to
accommodate become an undue burden as opposed to a
reasonable requirement.1561
Overall, these cases support Kuehn's assertion that the duty to accommodate
can continue after termination. But neither case, however, addresses the
question before us—accrual of this cause of action. Thus, they are inapposite.
Kuehn compares this case to Martini v. Boeing.57 arguing, "Like Martini,
the facts of this case demonstrate that [the] County's duty to accommodate Mr.
Kuehn continued after the date of the termination notice."58 But for reasons just
discussed, this argument is not helpful. He also relies on Martini to argue that a
wronged employee may recover damages for discrimination that begins during
the period barred by the statute of limitations but continues into the three-year
limitations period. But the question of damages is not at issue here. In short,
Martini does not assist Kuehn in any way.
In sum, Kuehn's arguments about the duty to accommodate fail to address
the central point—accrual of the discrimination claim was on August 2, 2007, not
some time later. Accordingly, these arguments are not helpful.
Finally, Kuehn argues that the trial court "mistakenly focused on the
termination as one actionable claim against [the] County, instead of the ongoing
56 Wheeler. 65 Wash. App. at 563.
57 88 Wash. App. 442, 945 P.2d 248 (1997).
58 Appellant's Opening Brief at 24.
18
No. 71743-0-1/19
discriminatory conduct of the County."59 And he argues that a lawsuit is timely
filed as long as some act of discrimination occurred within the limitations period.60
He relies primarily on Goodman v. Boeing61 and Antonius v. King County.62
In Goodman, this court held that, under the continuing violation doctrine,
an employee could recover damages for discrimination that began during the
period barred by the statute of limitations but that continued into the three-year
limitations period.63
In Antonius, our supreme court adopted the Supreme Court's analysis in
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan to determine whether an employer
is liable for hostile work environment conduct that occurred more than three
years before the plaintiff filed suit.64 In Morgan, the Supreme Court concluded
that hostile work environment claims, by their very nature, involve repeated
conduct, and thus, the unlawful employment practice cannot be said to occur on
any particular day. Accordingly, as our supreme court explained, "As a unitary
whole, the claim is not untimely if one of the acts occurs during the limitations
59 id,
60 id, at 25.
61 75 Wash. App. 60, 877 P.2d 703 (1994).
62 153 Wash. 2d 256, 103 P.3d 729 (2004).
63 Goodman, 75 Wash. App. at 76-78.
64 536 U.S. 101, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002).
19
No. 71743-0-1/20
period because the claim is brought after the practice, as a whole, occurred and
within the limitations period."65
Kuehn asserts that the County's "discriminatory refusal to accommodate
[him] continued through November 2, 2007."66 Thus, he argues that the pre-suit
notice and his lawsuit were timely filed because the statute did not begin to run
until the final act occurred.
But "'[a]n employer's refusal to undo a discriminatory decision is not a
fresh act of discrimination.'"67 And the "proper focus is on the time of the
discriminatory act, not the point at which the consequences of the act become
painful."68 The County's review of its decision in the grievance process did not
constitute a new act of discrimination that extended the accrual date. Kuehn's
claims are based on discrete acts, not repeated conduct.
As the supreme court explained in Antonius, "discrete retaliatory or
discriminatory acts, such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or
refusal to hire" are distinguishable from claims of a hostile work environment.69
65 Antonius. 153 Wash. 2d at 266.
66 Appellant's Opening Brief at 28.
67 Soignier v. Am. Bd. of Plastic Surgery. 92 F.3d 547, 552 (7th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Lever v. Nw. Univ.. 979 F.2d 552, 556 (7th Cir. 1992)).
68 Albright, 65 Wash. App. at 767 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Chardon. 454
U.S. at 8).
69 Antonius. 153 Wash. 2d at 264.
20
No. 71743-0-1/21
And for discrete acts, the limitations period runs from the act itself.70 In short, we
reject Kuehn's arguments that his suit was timely filed.
We affirm the summary judgment order.
^jzyx.cr.
WE CONCUR:
..Y)eg (rs f*~> L- .S. J .
70 Id,
21