|
In 1997, Thomas Davis got a note from his doctor worth $2.3 million. On Thursday, his lawyer told state Supreme Court justices why Davis should be allowed to keep it.
Two years ago, a Seattle jury ordered Davis' former employer, Microsoft, to pay him $2.3 million for violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination, but an appeals court ordered a new trial. At issue was whether a 60-plus-hour work week was necessary to do his job, and whether Microsoft did all it should have to help Davis, who suffered from hepatitis C, find another job in the company if it was.
For nine years beginning in 1987, Davis worked between 60 and 80 hours a week for Microsoft as a systems engineer servicing two major accounts, Gateway and Toshiba. When he contracted hepatitis C, his doctors told him he needed to reduce the stress on his body and gave him a note saying he should cut back to 40 hours a week.
For about a month, Davis' supervisor allowed him to drop Gateway and stay at his job servicing just one account. Then the company decided that was not a "reasonable accommodation" (as required by Washington's law) and placed him on leave, giving him six months to find a suitable job or be fired. He didn't and he was.
None of those details is up for dispute, however.
As Davis sat in the back of the courtroom at Olympia's Hall of Justice, his lawyer David Hasbrook argued that Microsoft had not proven that the long hours were an essential function of Davis' job. Davis had been able to cover one client in the time his doctor allowed, the lawyer told the nine justices, who peppered him with questions about whether the hours were spelled out in a contract or in his job description.
Mary Roberts, an attorney from the Washington affiliate of the National Employment Lawyers Association who sat with Hasbrook, told the court that allowing companies to set such arbitrary limits undermined the law's intent.
"Employers are highly motivated to frame the cases in terms of 'essential functions' because then questions of reasonable accommodation fall off entirely," Roberts said. "This is not a case of mandatory overtime. It's a case of having so much work (assigned) that it cannot be done in 40 hours."
"If lifting can be an essential function, or typing can be an essential function, I don't see why hours should not be an essential function," said Donna Mezias, of Microsoft's law firm Preston Gates and Ellis.
She said the systems engineer job Davis held involved responding to "unpredictable demands and urgent requests from customers" that could not be limited to a strict eight-hour-a-day schedule. Mezias argued that accepting Davis' position "would be to rewrite Washington law."
Asked how he thought the arguments went, Davis said it was too early for him to judge.
"I'm pleased that we were able to get here to begin with," he said.
A decision in the case is expected by January.
|
Linear Mode
