§ 3604

Citation: § 3604
Parent Document: Kiemle & Hagood Company v. Mariam P. Daniels a/k/a Phoebe Daniels (2023)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2023-04-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9440172/kiemle-hagood-company-v-mariam-... ↗

Full Text

1,106 chars

9
                Ms. Daniels contends that, even if K&H found Ms. Daniels’s requested
       accommodation vague, objectionable, or flatly unreasonable, K&H should have engaged
       Ms. Daniels in a dialogue to seek clarification or explore other possible solutions. We
       acknowledge there is a split among legal authorities on whether such a dialogue is
       required by the relevant statutes, or merely encouraged. See Joint Statement at 7
       (explaining that landlords “should” open a dialogue with tenants who propose an
       unreasonable accommodation, and that if there is an alternative accommodation that
       would meet a tenant’s needs, the landlord “must” grant it); compare Howard v. HMK
       Holdings, LLC, 988 F.3d 1185, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2021), and Groner, 250 F.3d at 1047,
       with Douglas, 884 A.2d at 1122 & n.22, 1143-44, and Jankowski Lee & Assocs., 91 F.3d
       at 896. At this juncture, we decline to endorse either side of this split, because we
       conclude the reasonableness of Ms. Daniels’s accommodation should have reached a jury
       either way.

Other Sections in This Document (519)

Full Text