Legal Opinion
Pulcino v. Federal Express Corp.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided September 14, 2000No. 68118-0PublishedCited by 90 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtIreland, J.
— In this employment discrimination case, both parties sought discretionary review. Leanne Gross Pulcino claims that the lower courts failed to recognize that her disability discrimination claim was based upon Federal Express’ (FedEx) failure to reasonably accommodate her during periods of temporary disability. We agree and thus reverse the summary judgment dismissal.
FedEx contends that Pulcino’s union discrimination claim is preempted by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-164, and, if not preempted, then is subject to dismissal because RCW 49.32.020 prohibits union discrimination only…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Livadas v. BradshawSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Wilson v. SteinbachWashington Supreme Court · 1982
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by90 opinions
- Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-IWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Snyder v. Medical Service Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
- Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
- Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
- Hale v. Wellpinit School Dist. No. 49Washington Supreme Court · 2009
85 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.