N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT J. KATHLEEN HUGE,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. THE B OEING C OM PANY, a De la ware C orporation, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-35250 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00857-R SM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ardo S. M artine z , C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 12, 2018 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd WATFORD, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd PREGER SON, ** Distric t Judge
. J. Ka thle e n Huge (“ Huge ” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e n t in fa vor of The B oe i ng C om

pa ny (“ B o e ing” ) on he r c la im s re late d to B o e ing’ s withdra wa l of 

# FIL ED
JUN 27 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble De an D. Pre ge rson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e n tra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.the L ong B e a c h offe r for disc rim ination unde r the Am e ric ans with Disa b ilitie s Ac t (“ ADA” ) and the W a shington La w Aga inst Disc rim ination (“ W LAD” ). “ W e
re vie w for c le ar e rror the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings in c onne c tion with a be nc h tria l.” Unite d State s v . Brobst , 558 F.3d 982, 998 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tion
and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w, Villav ic e nc io v . Se

ssions , 879 F.3d 941, 945 (9th C ir. 2018) (c ita tion om itte d), a

nd
m ixe d que s tions of la

w a nd fa c t, She a Home

s, Inc . and Subsidiarie

s v . C omm’r of Inte rnal Re v e nue , 834 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th C ir. 2016) (c ita tions omitte d). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we AFFIRM
. 1. To prove disc rim ination unde r the ADA a nd the W LAD, a

pla i ntiff m

ust
e sta blish, a m ong othe r things, she

suffe re d an a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c t ion “be c a

use of” he r disa

bility
. Dunlap v . Libe rty

N at. Prods., Inc

. , 878 F.3d 794, 798–99 (9th C ir. 2017) (c ita

tion om itte d); W a sh. R e v. C ode § 49.60.180(1). Huge c la im s B oe ing withdre w the offe r for the Long B e a c h position be c a use she wa s on
m e dic a l le ave (and in theproc e ss of c o m ple t ing a m e dic a l e v a luation), a

nd tha t B oe ing pla c e d he r on m e dic a l le ave be c a u se of he r disa

bility . Ac c ording to Huge , B oe ing withdre w its offe r “ be c a use of” he r disa

bility in viola tion of the ADA a

nd the W LAD. Dunlap , 878 F.3d a t 798–99; § 49.60.180(1). The re c ord none the le ss indic a te s Huge wa s on m e dic a l le ave at the tim e B o e i ng withdre w its offe r, in pa rt, 2be c a

use Huge he rse lf ha d de la y e d in ba d

fa ith the m e d ic a l e va l uation proc e ss. Huge doe s not c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s finding in this re ga rd, a nd he n c e the line of c a usat ion she se e ks to e sta

blish is not a s dire c t a s she c l a im s. Furthe rm ore , the d istric t c o urt did not c le arly e rr in finding B oe ing ha d a “ pre ssing ne e d” to fill the L ong B e a c h position. Unde r the fa c ts he re , she fa ile d to e sta blish tha t B oe ing withdre w the Long B e a c h offe r “ be c a use of” he r disa

b ility in viola tion of theADA
and the W LAD. Dunlap , 878 F.3d a t 798–99; § 49.60.180(1). 1 2. Huge furthe r c o nte nds B oe ing fa ile d to a c c om m odate he r disa

bility in viola tion of theADA a

nd the W LAD whe n it re fuse d to hold the

Long B e a c h job ope n while she c om

ple te d B oe ing’ s m e dic a l e va luation. Howe ve r, Huge ’ s re que st
wa s not one for re a sona

ble a c c om

m odation a s de fine d unde r both sta tute s— she
c onc e de s she did not re que st a ny a c c om m odation for he r a

ut ism with re spe c t to the Long B e a c h position. Huge sought, in e ffe c t, a

n a c c o m m odation not for he r disa bility but for he r de la

y in ba d fa ith during the

m e d ic a l e va l uation proc e ss. This
re que s t to hold the

job ope n c annot be c onstrue d a s a “ re a s ona b le a c c o m

m odation”

1 Unde r the W LAD, the pla intiff m ust prove he r disa

bility wa s a “ substa ntia l fa c t or” in the a d

ve rse e m ploy m e nt a c tion. Sc riv e ne r v . C lark C olle ge , 181 W a sh. 2d 439, 447 (2014) (en ba nc ) (c ita tion omitte d). Unde r the ADA, the re is te nsion am ong the c ourts a s to whe the r a but-for sta

n da rd of c a u sat ion or a

“ m otiva ting fa c t or” sta

nda rd a pplie s . Se e Me ndoza v . The Roman C atholic Arc hbishop of L.A. , 824 F.3d 1148, 1150 n.1 (9th C ir. 2016) (c i tation omitte d). Huge fa ile d to m e e t he r burde n of proving disc rim i nation re g ardle ss of the sta nda rd a p plie d. 3for he r disa

bility unde r the ADA, 42 U.S.C . § 12112(b)(5), or the W LAD, se e Doe
v . Boe ing C

o. , 846 P.2d 531, 537 (W a sh. 1993) (e n ba nc ). Eve n a ssum ing he r re que st wa s one for an a c c om m odation, thedistric t c ourt found— and she doe s not c ha l le nge on a ppe a l— that she ha d obstruc te d the inte ra c tive proc e ss in ba d fa ith to build a la wsuit, whic h, in turn, de la y e d he r
a bility to re turn to work in R

e nton or to be gin work in Long B e a c h . Huge ’ s ba d fa ith, c ouple d

with B oe ing’ s good fa ith e fforts to e nga ge in the inte ra c tive proc e ss
and offe r re a sona

ble a c c om

m odation ba se d on the inform a tion it ha d, e xtinguishe d B oe ing’ s lia

bility for not providing the

a c c om m o dation sought. Se e Zivk ov ic v . So. C al. Edison C

o. , 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th C ir. 2002) (inte ra c t ive proc e ss unde r ADA “ re quire s . . . dire c t c om m unic a tion be t

we e n the e m

ploy e r and e m

p loy e e to
e xplore in good faith the possiblea c c om m odations” (e m

pha sis a dde d) (c i tation a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); Frisino v . Se a ttle Sc h. Dist. N o. 1 , 160 W a sh. App. 765, 780 (2011) (sa m e , unde r W LAD). 2 3. The m e dic a l e va luation B oe ing re quire d of Huge for the Long B e a c h position wa s a

ppropria te . B oe ing ha d “ good c a

use for try ing to de te rm ine whe the r she wa s a ble to pe rform

he r job,” Yin v . State of C a l ., 95 F.3d 864, 868 (9th C ir.

2 W e do not m e a

n to sugge st Huge c o uld ne ve r have obta ine d the a c c om m odation she sought in Long B e a c h. She c ould ha ve , if she ha d not a c te d in ba d fa ith a

nd de la y e d the proc e ss. 41996), a

nd the propose d m e dic a l e xam ination wa s “ job re late d a

nd c onsiste nt with busine ss ne c e ssity ,” 42 U.S.C . § 12112(d)(4). AFFIRM E D.

5