Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 389189_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,718 chars
failed to accommodate their disability may constitute a defense to eviction. Josephinium

6
The federal and Washington provisions requiring reasonable accommodation in
housing are “virtually identical.” Wash. State Hum. Rts. Comm’n v. Hous. Auth., 21 Wn.
App. 2d 978, 987, 509 P.3d 319 (2022). Because the Washington and federal statutes are
analogous, authority interpreting the federal statute properly informs our interpretation of
both provisions. Cf. Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 491, 325 P.3d 193
(2014).

25
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38918-9-III
Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels

Assocs. v. Kahli, 111 Wn. App. 617, 626, 45 P.3d 627 (2002). The defense can be

asserted so long as the failure to accommodate is germane to the landlord’s claim to the

right to possess the premises. Id.

A tenant raising failure to accommodate as an affirmative defense must show five

elements: (1) they have a “disability” as that term is statutorily defined, (2) their landlord

“knew or reasonably should have known” of the disability, (3) the requested

accommodation “‘may be necessary’ to afford [the tenant] an equal opportunity to use

and enjoy their dwelling”, and (4) the landlord denied the request. Giebeler v. M&B

Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Cal. Mobile Home

Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997)). Further, the tenant is not entitled

to their requested accommodation unless it is (5) “reasonable.” Id. at 1148.

The evidence here readily supports the possibility of a jury verdict for Ms. Daniels

on the first and fourth elements. Ms. Daniels has presented evidence—in the form of