# Holland v. Boeing Company

> Washington Supreme Court · August 17, 1978 · 90 Wash. 2d 384

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853675

## Case

- **Full name:** Raymond W. Holland, Respondent, v. the Boeing Company, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 17, 1978
- **Citations:** 90 Wash. 2d 384; 583 P.2d 621; 1 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 30; 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8595; 18 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 37; 1978 Wash. LEXIS 1104
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Utter
- **Judges:** Hamilton, Utter
- **Cited by:** 201 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/9853675

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that arbitrarily removing handicapped employee from current position and placing him in a position where, because of his handicap, he was destined to fail, constituted unfair practice in violation of discrimination statute
- finding a reasonable-accommodation-for- disability requirement inherent in the "legislative policy" embodied in the WLAD, even though that statute did not employ the term "accommodation"
- explaining that, in contrast to other forms of discrimination, “different treatment may eliminate discrimination against the handicapped and open the door to employment opportunities”

## Opinion text

Utter, J.
(concurring) — I strongly support the underlying aims of RCW 49.60 to free individuals from various forms of discrimination and concur in much of what the majority states regarding this act. There is an obligation on the part of employers to make a reasonable accommodation to handicapped employees. That term, however, makes use of the word "reasonable" and the effort demanded of employers should not be more than that. Boeing Company, in fact, made several efforts to accommodate respondent's handicap and still retain him at the same level of employment. The court specifically found that Boeing's efforts to make a suitable placement for him "were greater than the efforts they would have made were he not handicapped."
I believe it was Holland's obligation to prove that a job existed at Boeing for him at the level at which he sought to be retained, and that he was qualified for that position. There were many jobs he admitted he could not perform and skills he did not have. The court's findings of fact are supported, however, by testimony in the record. Although I would have concluded Boeing did make a reasonable accommodation to Holland, we will not substitute our view of the facts for that of the trial court.
Brachtenbach and Hicks, JJ., concur with Utter, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9853675. Public record. Not legal advice.