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

1,721 chars
classes may have been a substantial factor in such enforcement. Here, the unrebutted

expert report found that the CFRHP was enforced in a way that “disproportionately

and significantly” impacted Latinx households, women-headed households, and

households with children under 18. 2 CP at 755. Police reports also show that

enforcement of the CFRHP was highly discretionary, with Rivas sometimes

initiating CFRHP contact while on patrol and sometimes giving warnings before

issuing notices of violation, whereas the tenant declarations describe being evicted

with little to no warning. See, e.g., id. at 462, 602, 661-62, 666. The question of

whether a protected class “was a substantial factor in the alleged discrimination, like

42
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

other matters of proximate causation, is a question of fact.” Fell, 128 Wn.2d at 641;

Strauss v. Premera Blue Cross, 194 Wn.2d 296, 301, 449 P.3d 640 (2019)

(“Generally speaking, expert opinion on an ultimate question of fact is sufficient to

establish a triable issue and defeat summary judgment.”).

There are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude judgment as a matter

of law for the State’s claims under both the WLAD and the FHA. We reverse the

grant of summary judgment on this issue and remand to the trial court.

VI. RLTA

Last, the State raised two claims based on the RLTA. It argues the

respondents violated the RLTA by evicting tenants without a judicial eviction order

and by evicting tenants because they were victims of domestic violence. RCW

59.18.290, .580(2). The respondents argue they cannot be held liable under the