context: Washington state courts have noted that state law relating to disability discrimination substantially parallels federal law, and courts should look to interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws, including the ADA, when applying the WLAD.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 161 F.3d 1196, 1199
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that courts should employ the same analysis to evaluate claims under the ADA and the WLAD
citation_a.sentence: See Matthews v. NCAA, 179 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1229 (E.D.Wash.2001); see MacSuga v. County of Spokane, 97 Wash.App. 435, 442, 983 P.2d 1167 (1999) (commenting in dicta that the WLAD and ADA “have the same purpose” and state courts therefore may look to federal cases for guidance); see also Kees v. Wallenstein, 161 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that courts should employ the same analysis to evaluate claims under the ADA and the WLAD).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 97 Wash.App. 435, 442
citation_b.parenthetical: commenting in dicta that the WLAD and ADA "have the same purpose" and state courts therefore may look to federal cases for guidance
citation_b.sentence: See Matthews v. NCAA, 179 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1229 (E.D.Wash.2001); see MacSuga v. County of Spokane, 97 Wash.App. 435, 442, 983 P.2d 1167 (1999) (commenting in dicta that the WLAD and ADA “have the same purpose” and state courts therefore may look to federal cases for guidance); see also Kees v. Wallenstein, 161 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that courts should employ the same analysis to evaluate claims under the ADA and the WLAD).