NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STAN CHRIS T IANSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
THE BOEING COMPANY , a Delaware company with its headquarters in Illinois doing business in the state of Washington,
Defendant

- Appellee. No. 22

- 35472
D.C. No. 2:20

- cv - 01349

- RSM
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez , District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5 , 2023 ** Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and CALLAHAN , Circuit Judges. Stan Christianson (“Christianson”) appeals the adverse summary judgment
in his action against The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) a sserting Washington state

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 claims of employment discrimination due to his sleep

- related disabilities of insomnia and sleep apnea

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment , ” Christian v. Umpqua Bank , 984 F.3d 801, 808 (9th Cir. 2020) , and we affirm. Christianson cannot prevail o n his failure to accommodate claim under Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.180(2) because he failed to provide Boeing “ notice of the abnormality and its accompanying substantial limitations.” See Gamble v. City of Seattle , 431 P.3d 1091, 109 4 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). Boeing maintains a formal process for employees to request disability accommodatio n s that Christianson successfully
utilized multiple times in the past. Yet, Christianson never submitted a formal request for accommodation due to his sleep

- related disabilities despite his familiarity

— and success

— with the program. Boeing cannot be held res ponsible for Christianson’s failure to notify his employer that his sleep

- related disabilities substantially limited his ability to perform his job such that accommodation was
needed

. See id

. at 1097.
Christianson’s disparate treatment claim fa ils beca use he does not raise an
inference of unlawful discrimination. See Brownfield v. City of Yakima , 316 P.3d 520, 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). He provides no evidence that Boeing treated him differently t han any other employee because of his disability. See Kirby v. City of3 Tacoma , 98 P.3d 827, 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). The district court properly found that a failure to consistently appear at work in violation of established company policy i s the type of discharge that “would typically result in discharge in any employment setting .”
Even if Christianson established a prima facie case for these claims , he must
establish either that the asserted reason for his termination was pretextual or that
“discrimin ation, retaliation, or violation of public policy also was a substantial motivating factor for the termination” to prevail. See Mackey v. Home Depot USA,
Inc. , 459 P.3d 371, 38 7 ( Wash. Ct. App. 2020)

. Christianson cannot do so because Boeing presented le gitimate, non

- discriminatory, and non

- retaliatory reason s for
Christianson’s termination

— namely, his failure to comply with Boeing’s attendance policies and failure to communicate appropriately with his supervisor despite progressive discipline and warnings. See Fulton v. State, Dep’t of Soc. &
Health Servs. , 279 P.3d 500, 506

– 07 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012 ).
AFFIRMED

.