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

1,744 chars
7
The Joint Statement is a policy statement, rather than an authoritative
interpretation, but it has been recognized as persuasive authority. See, e.g., Bhogaita v.
Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2014); Sabal
Palm Condos. of Pine Island Ridge Ass’n, Inc. v. Fischer, 6 F. Supp. 3d 1272, 1286 (S.D.
Fla. 2014); Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109, 1120, 1122 (D.C. Cir. 2005);
Andover Hous. Auth. v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300, 309 n.14, 820 N.E.2d 815 (2005); Kuhn
v. McNary Estates Homeowners Ass’n., Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1142, 1149 (D. Or. 2017).
K&H does not disagree that the Joint Statement should be referenced as persuasive
authority. See Br. of Resp’t at 45.

28
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

furnished medical records in which her physician described her as “markedly kyphotic” 8

along with noting several other physical impairments. Def.’s Ex. 2, at 2 (emphasis added).

Moreover, multiple K&H employees testified they knew Ms. Daniels had problems with

her back because she had told them as much. WLAD broadly defines “impairment" to

include any “condition . . . affecting” an individual’s “musculoskeletal” system.

RCW 49.60.040(7)(c)(i). And an “impairment” is a “disability” when it is “perceived to

exist whether or not it exists in fact.” RCW 49.60.040(7)(a)(iii). Ms. Daniels’s back

problems readily meet this definition, and K&H’s employees were aware of them.

b. Necessity of tenant’s requested accommodation

The trial court also concluded Ms. Daniels should have provided third-party

verification of the connection between her disability and her requested accommodation.