{"id":418,"date":"2021-11-04T13:15:38","date_gmt":"2021-11-04T20:15:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/court-slips\/?p=418"},"modified":"2024-10-20T11:41:56","modified_gmt":"2024-10-20T18:41:56","slug":"kumar-v-gate-gourmet-inc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gwilliamslaw.com\/court-slips\/kumar-v-gate-gourmet-inc\/","title":{"rendered":"Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481 (Wash. 2014)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Kumar
Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014)<\/i><\/b><\/center><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\n

In Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.<\/em><\/a>, 180 Wn.2d 481, 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014), a group of employees (“Kumar”) sued their employer (“Gate Gourmet”) based on an allegedly discriminatory meal policy that forced them to work without food or eat food that violates their religious beliefs<\/a>. The Court concluded, inter alia, that the “[Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD<\/a>)] \u2026\u00a0includes a duty to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices.”<\/p>\n

IMPORTANT<\/strong>: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. This is not a resource for the actual and complete appellate court opinion. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy<\/a> before proceeding.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/span><\/em><\/center>
\n