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
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Full Text
1,723 charsProject, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 527, 135 S. Ct. 2507, 192 L. Ed. 2d 514 (2015); Oliver v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 106 Wn.2d 675, 679, 724 P.2d 1003 (1986). Third, if the defendant makes that showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove there is an alternative practice available that has a less disparate impact. Inclusive Cmtys., 576 U.S. at 533. Here, since the respondents argue only that the State cannot make out a prima facie case, and the State has not moved for summary judgment regarding necessity, we need address only the first step. The elements of a prima facie disparate impact claim under state and federal law are similar, but not identical. For an FHA disparate impact claim, the plaintiff must show (1) there is an “‘outwardly neutral’” policy or practice, (2) “‘significantly issues here and, instead, we consider all the evidence in the record at summary judgment, as did the superior court. 39 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. State v. City of Sunnyside et al. No. 101205-5 adverse or disproportionate impact’” on a protected class, and (3) “‘robust causality’” between the policy and alleged disparities. Sw. Fair Hous. Council, Inc. v. Maricopa Domestic Water Improvement Dist., 17 F.4th 950, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 711 (9th Cir. 2009); Inclusive Cmtys., 576 U.S. at 542). For a disparate impact claim under the WLAD, the plaintiff must prove (1) there is a facially neutral policy or practice and (2) the policy “falls more harshly on a protected class.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 503, 325 P.3d 193 (2014) (citing Oliver, 106 Wn.2d