McClarty v. Totem Elec.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. All 58 flagged citations have been read.
58 later cases cite McClarty v. Totem Elec.; 58 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on McClarty v. Totem Elec.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by statute
-
The court held that the 2007 amendment to Washington's discrimination law replaced McClarty's disability definition outside the period from July 6, 2006, to July 22, 2007, and applied the statutory definition to an earlier claim.
Frisino v. Seattle School District No. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One · filed
In 2007, the legislature amended WLAD to adopt a definition of “disability.” Johnson v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 159 Wn. App. 18, 28, 244 P.3d 438 (2010); Laws of 2007, ch. 317, § 2. The amendment is retroactive and applies to all causes of action occurring before July 6, 2006 and on or after July 22, 2007. Laws of 2007, ch. 317, § 3. The interim period constitutes the time between the Supreme Court’s adoption of a definition in McClarty and the effective date of the amendment. Hale v. Wellpinit Sch. Dist. No. 49, 165 Wn.2d 494, 502, 198 P.3d 1021 (2009). McClarty remains good law only in that interim period.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Washington Supreme Court recognized that the legislature rejected McClarty's ADA-based definition and adopted a broader statutory definition for the discrimination claim before it.
Taylor v. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc. · Washington Supreme Court · filed
¶13 The legislature disagreed with the definition adopted by the majority in McClarty. It expressly found "that the supreme court, in its opinion in McClarty v. Totem Electric, failed to recognize that the Law Against Discrimination affords to state residents protections that are wholly independent of those afforded by the [ADA], and that the law against discrimination has provided such protections for many years prior to passage of the federal act." LAWS of 2007, ch. 317, § 1 (citation omitted). The legislature chose to define "disability" broadly as "the presence of a sensory, mental, or physical impairment," even if it does not limit life activities, and explained that an " 'impairment' includes, but is not limited to ... [a]ny physiological disorder, or condition ... affecting one or more of the [listed] body systems." RCW 49.60.040(7)(a), (c)(i).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads McClarty v. Totem Elec. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace