Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,723 chars
Project, 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