Elva Garcia v. Cintas Corp. No. 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELVA GARCIA, No. 13-35406
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03064-RMP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 3, a
Nevada corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Elva Garcia appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment dismissing her claim for failure to accommodate her disability under
Revised Code of Washington § 49.60.180. Because the parties are familiar with
the facts and procedural history, we do not restate them except as necessary to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. To give proper notice of an injury requiring an accommodation, the
plaintiff must either show that the condition substantially limited her, or produce
medical documentation that working without an accommodation would aggravate
the impairment until it became substantially limiting. Wash. Rev. Code §
49.60.040(7)(d); Johnson v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 244 P.3d 438, 444 (Wash. Ct.
App. 2010). Although Garcia injured her wrist in August 2011, she told Cintas
that she was pain-free in early November 2011, if not later, and thus she was not
substantially limited by her condition at that time. Moreover, she produced no
medical documentation that her condition would be aggravated by working in the
First Sort position. Accordingly, her prior injury in August 2011 and her statement
in mid-November that she could only do the First Sort position for about two
weeks did not provide sufficient notice of any disability requiring accommodation
in late November or early December 2011.
Garcia’s deposition testimony and declaration are also insufficient to raise a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cintas had a duty to accommodate
Garcia’s wrist condition in November 2011. Her deposition testimony is
ambiguous and inconsistent as to when and what she told her supervisor about her
wrist. Construed in the light most favorable to Garcia, her testimony and later-
2
filed declaration indicate that Garcia may have generally complained of pain and
asked whether Cintas had found someone to replace her at First Sort, neither of
which is sufficient to provide notice of a need for accommodation. See Hume v.
Am. Disposal Co., 880 P.2d 988, 996 (Wash. 1994). Moreover, there is no
indication that Garcia missed any work due to her wrist condition, or that her
ability to complete her job assignments was compromised until January 2012. Id.
Every other piece of evidence, including her own statements to her doctor and to a
state agency, shows that she did not notify Cintas that she had a substantially
limiting condition until the end of December 2011 or the beginning of January
2012. No duty to accommodate arose until January 3, 2012, when Garcia informed
Cintas she could no longer work at the First Sort position due to her wrist
condition.
2. An employee is not entitled to her preferred accommodation, and an
employer is not required to provide a medically unnecessary accommodation. Hill
v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 23 P.3d 440, 452–53 (Wash. 2001), overruled on other
grounds by McClarty v. Totem Elec., 137 P.3d 844 (Wash. 2006); Pulcino v. Fed.
Express Corp., 9 P.3d 787, 795 (Wash. 2000), overruled on other grounds by
McClarty, 137 P.3d 844. Although the parties agree that Cintas had proper notice
of the need to accommodate Garcia’s wrist condition in January 2012, Garcia does
3
not dispute that she was physically capable of working on the First Sort position
with one hand without aggravating her wrist. Moreover, she refused to attempt
Cintas’ proposed accommodations and became hostile in response to the proposals.
The district court did not err in determining that Cintas provided a reasonable
accommodation.
AFFIRMED.
4