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
1,774 charsat 679). Statistical analysis may be used under both standards. Sw. Fair Hous. Council, 17 F.4th at 961; Oliver, 106 Wn.2d at 682. The respondents primarily argue that Dr. Tippett’s report does not demonstrate “robust causality.” They argue the prima facie elements for the disparate impact housing discrimination claims under state and federal law— including the “robust causality” requirement—are the same, relying on Tafoya v. Human Rts. Comm’n, 177 Wn. App. 216, 311 P.3d 70 (2013). Tafoya did not so hold, and we reject the invitation to conflate the two standards. First, Tafoya did not involve a disparate impact claim at all—there, a tenant filed a complaint under the WLAD when her landlord sexually harassed her. 177 Wn. App. at 221. Since Washington law had not previously addressed sexual harassment as an unfair practice in real estate transactions under the WLAD, the 40 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. State v. City of Sunnyside et al. No. 101205-5 court looked to federal case law for some guidance. Id. at 224 (“When interpreting Washington law, we may look to the federal case law when a federal anti- discrimination law contains the same protections and mandates the same broad construction.”). The Tafoya court consulted federal cases to the extent it found housing discrimination laws contemplate broad protections against discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting property, not limited to the transaction of entering into a lease agreement. Id. at 225. That case did not adopt the “robust causality” approach. We have never required “robust causality” under the WLAD, and we decline to import that language into a WLAD analysis. Instead, we have described the