Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Sequim Man's Discrimination Suit Against Washington State Ferries

A state appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a Sequim man who alleged that Washington State Ferries and the Washington State Department of Transportation discriminated against him on the basis of disability and age when they terminated his probationary employment in 2023.

In an unpublished opinion filed August 4, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, Division II, affirmed a December 2024 ruling by Clallam County Superior Court Judge Simon Barnhart that dismissed the case with prejudice. 

Judge Meng Li Che authored the opinion, with Judges Bradley Maxa and Linda Lee concurring.

The Underlying Dispute

According to the opinion, WSDOT hired Anders Tron-Haukebo on March 28, 2023, as a probationary "On Call Terminal" employee with Washington State Ferries, a division of the department. 

The appointment was expressly contingent on successful completion of new hire orientation.

During orientation, Tron-Haukebo asked a person seated in the front row of the classroom to trade places, citing a hearing disability, and separately asked instructors whether he could take training materials home to study, a request that was denied, the opinion states.

On April 3, 2023, Tron-Haukebo took an Electronic Fare System assessment, scoring 80 out of 100 on the written portion and 60 out of 100 on the practical portion, for a combined score of 70 percent, which was a failing result. 

The ferry system terminated his employment effective April 4, citing a collective bargaining agreement rule permitting termination of probationary employees.

Tron-Haukebo asked to be assigned instead as a traffic guide, the role responsible for directing vehicles at ferry terminals, and asked to be scheduled for the next classroom training session. Both requests were denied, and he was told he would need to reapply. 

According to WSDOT, at the time of his termination Tron-Haukebo had no medical file on record and had not requested accommodations related to a hearing disability.

Tron-Haukebo, who represented himself, filed the suit in August 2024 after at least three earlier lawsuits over the matter were dismissed without prejudice. 

His complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and his due process rights, stating that he was born in the 1940s and that older learners may require adaptive measures.

The Court's Ruling

The appeals court held that Tron-Haukebo failed to establish a prima facie case that the state failed to reasonably accommodate a disability under the WLAD. 

Because his employment was contingent on completing orientation and he failed the assessment administered during it, the panel concluded he did not show he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, including the traffic guide role he sought. 

The court cited precedent holding that employers are not required to eliminate or reassign essential job functions.

The panel also found no evidence of an interactive process in which Tron-Haukebo disclosed a mental or learning disability to the state, as required under state law.

On the federal claims, the court held that the state is immune from ADA and ADEA suits under the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity doctrine, noting that Washington has not waived its immunity from ADA claims in state court and citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents on the ADEA.

The panel declined to consider Tron-Haukebo's arguments that he was denied a jury trial and a pre-termination hearing, finding that both claims received only passing treatment without reasoned argument or supporting authority. 

It also denied his request for attorney fees and costs on appeal, noting that a party requesting fees must provide argument and citation to authority, which he did not do.

The court declined to consider several facts Tron-Haukebo raised for the first time on appeal, including his completion of an undergraduate degree and his assertion that other, less demanding positions were open when he was terminated, because those facts were not presented to the trial court.

The opinion is unpublished. Under Washington court rule GR 14.1, unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals have no precedential value and are not binding on any court, though they may be cited as nonbinding authority.

The Attorney General's Office represented the state defendants.