Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.

Madsen, C.J. (dissenting)

¶43 I believe that the

majority erred by implying a cause of action for religious *507accommodation into the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW, in the absence of any legislative or administrative directive. Notwithstanding this error, the majority then misapplies this newly created accommodation cause of action to this case. Even assuming a new cause of action, Kumar fails to allege a requisite adverse employment action and therefore fails to state a prima facie case. I respectfully dissent.

Discussion

¶44 To begin with, the majority’s decision…