STEPHANIE GAMBINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC., d/b/a DAVITA, INC., Defendant-Appellee., 486 F.3d 1087

Summary

The appellate court found that it would amend its opinion to include two paragraphs that further outlined its position. The court clarified that the law often did provide more protection for individuals with disabilities. Unlike other types of discrimination where identical treatment was the gold standard, identical treatment was often not equal treatment with respect to disability discrimination. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12111(8), a plaintiff had to establish that she was an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, could perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual held or desired. Washington Law had a similar provision under Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.180(1). Even if the plaintiff were to establish that she is qualified, under the ADA the employer would still be entitled to raise a "business necessity" or "direct threat" defense against the discrimination claim. The employer could...