# Dean v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle

> Washington Supreme Court · October 31, 1985 · 104 Wash. 2d 627

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551214

## Case

- **Full name:** Larry D. Dean, Respondent, v. the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 31, 1985
- **Citations:** 104 Wash. 2d 627; 708 P.2d 393
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brachtenbach
- **Judges:** Callow, Dolliver, Dore, Pearson, Goodloe, Durham, Utter, Andersen, Brachtenbach
- **Cited by:** 100 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551214

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that federal law may be considered instructive with regard to our state discrimination laws
- affirming jury instruction that included mental anguish as aspect of “actual damages” available under state anti-discrimination statute

## Opinion text

Brachtenbach, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result solely upon the basis that Metro did not except to the instruction that accommodation of a handicapped worker is an undue hardship if it is unreasonable in view of the size of the employer's business.
WAC 162-22-080(3) provides:
The cost of accommodating an able handicapped worker will be considered to be an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business only if it is unreasonably high in view of the size of the employer's business
That standard may well be a valid and desirable criteria for determining the necessity of an employer's accommodation. However, it is not authorized by the statute, RCW 49.60.120(3) and .180(3).
The regulation is beyond the authority granted the Commission. Its authority, RCW 49.60.110, is to adopt regulations to carry out the provisions of RCW 49.60. Nowhere is there a hint that the size of the employer's business is a relevant factor in determining whether there has been discrimination against a handicapped person. Such a criterion should be set by the Legislature, not the Commission.
Utter and Andersen, JJ., concur with Brachtenbach, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551214. Public record. Not legal advice.