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

Related Parts of This Source

1,726 chars

We recognize there are cases where a landlord may require verification of the nexus

between a tenant’s disability and the requested accommodation, even if the disability

itself is obvious. See Joint Statement at 13. But this case is not one where verification was

necessary. K&H’s allegations against Ms. Daniels included concerns that she failed to

unpack boxes, did not remove garbage, and did not regularly clean. No specialized

Kyphosis” is “abnormal backward curvature of the spine.” WEBSTER’S THIRD
8“

NEW INT’L DICTIONARY 1258 (1993).

29
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

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

knowledge is needed to understand that an elderly person with significant back problems

may have trouble engaging in these tasks. And Ms. Daniels expressly premised her

requested accommodation—a discontinuation of the eviction proceedings—on the fact

that such a discontinuation would give her time to find resources to help her with those

tasks.

The facts were sufficient to require a jury trial on the issue of the necessity of

Ms. Daniels’s requested accommodation.

c. Reasonableness of tenant’s requested accommodation

K&H argues that even if it knew of Ms. Daniels’s disability and the connection

between her disability and requested accommodation, the trial court should be affirmed

because Ms. Daniels has not raised a material issue of fact regarding the reasonableness

of her accommodation request. Generally, the reasonableness of an accommodation is a

question of fact demanding case-by-case scrutiny. See Jankowski Lee & Assocs. v.

Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 1996). And questions of fact are usually proper jury