Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,751 chars

connection.17 The State brought claims under both the WLAD and the FHA and

17
Below, the respondents also argued Dr. Tippett’s expert report should not be admitted
because her reliance on 2010 census data and broad consideration of CFRHP enforcement
“incidents” made her opinion unreliable and irrelevant. 1 CP at 368-69. The State defended the
reliability of Dr. Tippett’s information sources and countered that the respondents’ arguments
largely go to the weight a fact finder should accord to the expert opinion rather than its
admissibility. In their briefing before this court, the respondents claim they “articulated the
deficiencies regarding those opinions and the trial court correctly agreed.” Resp’ts’ Br. at 74.
They included no argument or citation to authority in support and, as discussed supra note 9, the
trial court did not exclude the report. 2 CP at 852; see RAP 10.3(a)(6) (briefs should contain
argument with citations to legal authority). We therefore decline to address any admissibility
38
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

both prohibit discrimination in rental housing on the basis of race, color, sex, or

familial status (including households with children under 18). 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a),

3602(k); RCW 49.60.222(f), .040(13). We conclude that there exist genuine issues

of material fact on this issue.

Both state and federal law recognize causes of action for disparate impact,

which are analyzed under a burden-shifting framework—first, the plaintiff must set

out a prima facie case of discrimination, and second, the defendant may rebut by

showing some necessity. Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys.