A state appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a Sequim man who claimed he was let go from a probationary position with Washington State Ferries and the Washington State Department of Transportation due to his age and hearing impairment.

In an opinion issued August 4, a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals, Division II, backed a December 2024 ruling by Clallam County Superior Court Judge Simon Barnhart, which ended the case definitively.

Judge Meng Li Che wrote the court’s opinion, joined by Judges Bradley Maxa and Linda Lee.

Key Facts of the Case

The department brought Anders Tron-Haukebo on board March 28, 2023, as a probationary “On Call Terminal” worker within Washington State Ferries, with his appointment explicitly tied to completing the new hire orientation program.

During orientation, he requested to move seats to accommodate his hearing difficulty and asked whether he could take training materials home for review—both requests were met with different responses, the court noted.

He completed an Electronic Fare System evaluation on April 3, scoring 80 on the written section and 60 on the hands-on component, yielding an overall 70 percent—just below the passing mark.

His employment ended the following day, April 4, based on a provision in the collective bargaining agreement allowing probationary staff to be dismissed without cause.

Following the termination, he inquired about transferring to the traffic guide role and rejoining the next orientation class. Neither request was granted, and he was informed he would need to submit a new application.

State officials pointed out that at the time of his dismissal, no medical documentation had been submitted, and he had not formally asked for accommodations tied to his hearing.

Tron-Haukebo, who represented himself in court, initiated the lawsuit in August 2024. This followed the dismissal of at least three earlier actions, all resolved without prejudice.

His complaint cited the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and constitutional due process protections. He noted he was born in the 1940s and argued that older learners often benefit from modified training approaches.

Court’s Legal Analysis

The appeals court determined that Tron-Haukebo did not meet the legal threshold to show the state violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination by not providing reasonable accommodations for his hearing condition.

Because his job offer hinged on orientation completion and he did not pass the assessment conducted during that period, the judges concluded he had not demonstrated he was capable of performing the core duties of the position—including the traffic guide role he sought.

Citing established precedent, the panel emphasized that public employers are not obligated to alter or redistribute essential job responsibilities.

Regarding the interactive process required under state law, the court found no evidence he had informed the agency of a mental or learning disability, a step necessary for triggering accommodation obligations.

On the federal claims, the court ruled the state shielded from liability under the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity doctrines. It noted Washington has not opted intowaiver of immunity for ADA claims in state court and referenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in *Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents* concerning ADEA claims.

A state appellate panel rejected Tron-Haukebo’s contentions that his right to a jury trial and a hearing prior to his termination were violated. The judges determined that the appellant offered only superficial arguments for these claims, lacking the necessary logical reasoning or citations to legal authorities.

In a separate ruling, the court refused to award the appellant attorney’s fees and litigation costs for the appeal. The panel emphasized that parties seeking such monetary awards must substantiate their requests with specific arguments and legal citations, a requirement Tron-Haukebo failed to meet.

The judges also declined to evaluate several new pieces of evidence introduced during the appeal, which were not previously presented to the lower court. These excluded facts included the appellant’s completion of an undergraduate degree and his claim that less demanding job openings were available at the time of his dismissal.

The decision is designated as unpublished. According to Washington State General Rule 14.1, such opinions from the Court of Appeals do not serve as binding precedent for other courts, although they may be referenced as nonbinding authority.

The state defendants were represented by the Attorney General’s Office.