Vancouver hit with disability lawsuit

A former employee of the Vancouver city attorney’s office has filed a lawsuit seeking $12 million, claiming that her former employer caused her health to deteriorate by refusing to reasonably accommodate her disability.

Karen Reed, who according to the suit worked as assistant city attorney from February 2016 to July 2017, filed the complaint Friday against the city of Vancouver, City Manager Eric Holmes, City Attorney Bronson Potter and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Young.

The document alleges an “intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrage, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with contractual relations, fraudulent inducement and loss of consortium.”

Reed, who has chronic back, hip and leg pain due to spinal surgeries, applied for a job as assistant city attorney in fall of 2015. At the time, she was employed and had more than 20 years experience practicing real estate, energy, environmental, land use and administrative law, the complaint states. For several years, she had telecommuted during half of her work hours to accommodate her disability.

Potter and Young verbally offered her the job in a January 2016 phone call, during which she told them that she’d need to work remotely 50 percent of the time, according to the court document. A week later, they sent her a written offer and she put in notice with her then-employer.

Reed submitted a reasonable accommodation request through her doctor, but in February 2016, it was denied by Young, the complaint states.

“Instead, Ms. Reed was required to be in the office for her full 40-hour workweek,” the document said. “Within a month after starting working for the city, Ms. Reed was experiencing uncontrollable spasms all day long because she was not able to control her chronic pain effectively.”

Reed made a number of other requests for help or accommodation over the next few months, but they were declined, according to the complaint. It alleges that Potter and Young unfairly criticized Reed’s work “based on performance issues that resulted from her unaccommodated disability.” The situation culminated in a September 2016 meeting in which they reprimanded her and set up weekly meetings to discuss her job performance.

A month later, Reed’s physician recommended she take a medical leave of absence due to “the severe and rapid deterioration of her health related to her workload,” the complaint states.

Her leave lasted nine months, during which she reportedly submitted several requests to telecommute during half her work hours, according to the court document. The requests were denied, and she was fired in July 2017.

Reed claims that she’s not since been able to return to work at all due to the hit to her health while employed by the city.

Reed’s husband, Michael Reed, is a co-plaintiff. The couple is being represented by Christine Tracey of Portland-based Northwest Lawfirm.

Karen Reed is seeking $10 million. Michael Reed is seeking $2 million, citing lost income while he provides for his wife and the emotional toll her deteriorating health has had on their relationship.

In an interview Monday, Tracey said the case should be cut-and-dried.

“I think the complaint pretty well speaks for itself. Ms. Reed requested an accommodation, and the city of Vancouver did not grant the accommodation that was spelled out by her doctor,” Tracey said. “And as a result of not being accommodated, her health has taken a real beating.”

“She is a person who, as you can see in the complaint, has disabilities and has effectively accommodated them in the past by working at home 50 percent of the time,” Tracey continued. The city insisted that Reed work full-time, Tracey said, “despite the fact that the city has a policy encouraging telecommuting. It’s a puzzle why they decided not to accommodate her.”

(The city’s Employment Policy Manual does have a protocol to “encourage, where appropriate, the use of telecommuting in order to attract and retain a diverse and talented work force, reduce costs, encourage affordable traffic mitigation, improve productivity among employees, and further goals of local, state, and national policies and regulations such as the Clean Air Act and the Commute Trip Reduction law.” However, whether or not an employee can telecommute is up to the discretion of their immediate supervisor and department director and depends on the demands of the job, according to the manual.)

In a written statement, Potter told another story, disagreeing with the characterization of Reed’s job performance.

In full, Potter wrote:

“Karen Reed worked as an assistant city attorney at the city attorney’s office for eight months. She was a probationary employee. During that time, there were multiple issues with her performance being unsatisfactory. When she was notified that she was going to be placed on a performance improvement plan, she went out on a medical leave which she remained on for eight months. After she and her doctor were unable to provide any estimate as to when she might be able to return to work, she was notified that the city could not hold her position open indefinitely and she was separated from employment with the city.”

Holmes did not return The Columbian’s request for comment.

All the listed defendants must formally respond to the complaint by March 29.