Disability Law Summaries
Washington, Disability Law Summaries
Washington has two laws dealing with disability discrimination in employment. The Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, among other factors. It is located in the Annotated Revised Code of Washington at Title 49, Chapter 49.60. The full text of the law is available beginning at Employment Practices Guide ¶50-20,025.10 .
Washington's White Cane Law deals specifically with disability discrimination in employment. This law, located in the Annotated Revised Code of Washington at Title 70, Chapter 70.84, is summarized below.
“Layla's Law,” relates to penalties for interferring with dog guides and service animals and is laocted in the Revised Code of Washington at Title 9, Chapter 9.91.
In addition to the laws, the Washington Human Rights Commission issued rules which interpret and implement the disability discrimination provisions of the state's Law Against Discrimination. The rules are located in the Washington Administrative Code at Title 162, Chapter 162-22, and are summarized below. The full text of the Human Rights Commission's disability discrimination rules is available beginning at Employment Practices Guide ¶50-20,800.10 .
The Department of Personnel has issued rules providing state employers guidance regarding the use of reasonable accommodation in employment. These rules are codified at Title 357, Chapter 357-26. The full text of the Department of Personnel's rules is available beginning at Employment Practices Guide ¶50-20,801.01 .
Interaction of disability laws.- State or local disability laws that provide protection that is greater than or equivalent to that of the Americans with Disabilities Act are not nullified by the Act, and neither are laws that provide less protection than the ADA. However, if either law provides less protection than the other, the law with the lesser standard cannot be used as a defense to the law with the higher standard.
Before making any decisions that will affect the rights of people with disabilities, it is important that state laws be compared with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A person with a disability may prefer to file charges under a state law with fewer protections if that state law has greater remedies than the ADA.
DEFINITIONS
The following definition applies to Washington's White Cane Law:
“Service animal” means an animal that is trained for the purpose of assisting or accommodating a person's sensory, mental, or physical disability (Sec. 70.84.021, as amended by Ch. 271, L. 1997, effective July 27, 1997).
The following definitions apply to the Human Rights Commission's disability discrimination rules:
“Disability” is short for the statutory term “the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability,” except when it appears as part of the full term (WAC 162-22-020, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Disability terminology.- Recognizing that many terms used in reference to disabilities are demeaning and create an invisible barrier to inclusion, the legislature has required that all new and revised laws and rules use terminology that puts the person before the disability. For example, individuals with disabilities
must be used in place of disabled
. Other preferred terms are:individuals with developmental disabilities
, individuals with mental illness
and individuals with mental retardation
(Ch. 175 (H. 2663), L. 2004, adding new sections to chapters 44.04 and 34.05, effective June 10, 2004).
“The presence of a sensory, mental, or physical disability” includes, but is not limited to, circumstances where a sensory, mental or physical condition (WAC 162-22-020, as amended effective August 12, 1999):
is medically cognizable or diagnosable;
exists as a record or history;
is perceived to exist whether or nor it exists in fact.
A condition is a “sensory, mental or physical disability” if it is an abnormality and is a reason why the person having the condition did not get or keep the job in question, or was denied equal pay for equal work, or was discriminated against in other terms and conditions of employment, or was denied equal treatment in other areas covered by the statutes. In other words, for enforcement purposes, a person will be considered to have a disability of a sensory, mental or physical condition if he or she is discriminated against because of the condition and the condition is abnormal (WAC 162-22-020, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
“Able worker with a disability” is a person whose disability does not prevent the proper performance, with or without reasonable accommodation, of the particular job in question (WAC 162-22-020, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
“Dog guide” means a dog that is trained for the purpose of guiding blind persons or a dog that is trained for the purpose of assisting hearing impaired persons (WAC 162-22-020, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
“Reasonable accommodation” means measures that (WAC 162-22-065, as added effective August 12, 1999):
enable equal opportunity in the application process;
enable the proper performance of the particular job held or desired;
enable the enjoyment of equal benefits, privileges or terms and conditions of employment.
Possible examples of reasonable accommodation may include, but are not limited to (WAC 162-22-065, as added effective August 12, 1999):
adjustments in job duties, work schedules or scope of work;
changes in the job setting or conditions of work;
informing the employee of vacant positions and considering the employee for those positions for which the employee is qualified.
“Service animal” means an animal that is trained for the purpose of assisting or accommodating a person's sensory, mental, or physical disability (WAC 162-22-020, as amended effective August 12, 1999, and Sec. 70.84.021, as amended by Ch. 271, L. 1997).
ACCESSIBILITY
Civil rights.- The right to be free from discrimination because of the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to, the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement (Sec. 49.60.030, as amended by H. 1596, L. 2009).
Public accommodations.- Persons with physical disabilities are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges in hotels, lodging places, places of public resort, accommodations, assemblage or amusement, and all other places to which the public is invited (Sec. 70.84.010(3)).
It is an unfair practice for any person or his or her agent or employee to commit an act that results in any distinction, restriction or discrimination; require a person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons; or refuse or withhold from a person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement. This does not apply to conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability. This section must not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law. Behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and will not constitute an unfair practice (Sec. 49.60.215, as amended by S. 5123, L. 2007, effective July 22, 2007).
With limited exceptions, it is an unfair practice under Sec. 49.60.215 (see above) for any person in the operation of a place of public accommodation, because of disability or use of a trained dog guide or service animal (WAC 162-26-070, as amended effective August 12, 1999; Sec. 70.84.010(3)):
to refuse to serve a person;
to charge for reasonably accommodating the special needs of a person with a disability;
to require a person with a disability accompanied by a trained dog guide or service animal in hotels, lodging places, places of public resort, accommodations, assemblage or amusement, and all other places to which the public is invited, to pay an extra charge for the trained dog guide or service animal;
to treat a person with a disability as not welcome, accepted, desired or solicited the same as a person without a disability;
to segregate or restrict a person or deny a person the use of facilities or services in connection with the place of public accommodation where same service is possible without regard to the disability; or
to fail to reasonably accommodate the known physical, sensory or mental limitations of a person with a disability, when same service would prevent the person from fully enjoying the place of public accommodation.
Reasonable accommodation.- It is an unfair practice for a person in the operation of a place of public accommodation to fail or refuse to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical, sensory, or mental limitations of a person with a disability or to the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, when same service would prevent the person from fully enjoying the place of public accommodation (WAC 162-26-080, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Whether a possible accommodation is reasonable or not depends on the cost of making the accommodation, the size of the place of public accommodation, the availability of staff to make the accommodation, the importance of the service to the person with a disability, and other factors bearing on reasonableness in the particular situation (WAC 162-26-080, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Carrying a mobility-impaired person is not required by law and is not an acceptable accommodation, except in rare cases. Carrying should be done only when there is no other way for the mobility-impaired person to use the facility and when it is agreeable to the person with a disability (WAC 162-26-080, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Accessibility standards.- It is an unfair practice under Sec. 49.60.215 (see above) (WAC 162-26-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999):
to deny service to any person because of a barrier to accessibility when accessibility is required by law;
to build or remodel in a way that does not comply with requirements of law on accessibility;
to operate a place of public accommodation that is out of compliance with a law requiring accessibility;
to fail to maintain or fail to continue the accessibility of a place of public accommodation that was required by law to be accessible when it was built, remodeled or rehabilitated.
It is an unfair practice under Sec. 49.60.215 (see above) for a person who is making nonstructural changes in a place of public accommodation to fail to eliminate barriers to same service when this can be done without substantially changing the scope or cost of the project or requiring structural changes that are not otherwise required by law. Specifically, it is an unfair practice (WAC 162-26-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999):
when installing a nonstructural fixture or component, to choose and install one that is not accessible to the person with a disability or that makes the place of public accommodation less accessible to the person with a disability.
when replacing a nonstructural fixture or component, to replace it with one that is not accessible to the person with a disability or one that makes the place of public accommodation less accessible to the person with a disability.
when relocating a nonstructural fixture or component, to relocate it to a place that is not accessible to the person with a disability, unless no suitable place is accessible.
when modifying a nonstructural fixture or component, to do so in a way that does not eliminate barriers to the person with a disability, when possible.
Risk of injury.- It is an unfair practice to deny a person with a disability the enjoyment of an entire place of public accommodation because the person presents a risk of injury when using part of the place. When risk justifies not serving a person with a disability in the same way or same place as other customers, the person should be served through reasonable accommodation, if possible (WAC 162-26-110, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Same service.- The purposes of the Law Against Discrimination are best achieved when persons with disabilities are treated as if they did not have disabilities. Persons should, if possible, be treated without regard to their disability or use of a dog guide or service animal. This is called “same service” (WAC 162-26-060, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
The law protects against discrimination because of the “presence” of a disability. It does not prohibit treating persons with disabilities more favorably than persons without disabilities in circumstances where same service will defeat the purposes of the Law Against Discrimination (WAC 162-26-060, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Waiver of rights.- It is an unfair practice for any person to request or require another person to waive rights or hold anyone harmless as a condition of the use or enjoyment of a place of public accommodation by a person with a disability (WAC 162-26-140, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
It is an unfair practice to request or require another person to waive rights or hold anyone harmless as a condition of the use or enjoyment of a place of public accommodation by a person with a disability using a dog guide or service animal (WAC 162-26-140, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Dog guides or service animals.- It is an unfair practice for a place of public accommodation to ask that a trained dog guide or service animal be removed, unless that place of public accommodation can show that the presence, behavior or actions of that animal constitutes an unreasonable risk of injury or harm to property or other persons. It is an unfair practice to remove a trained dog guide or service animal from the entire place of public accommodation because the dog guide or service animal presents a risk of injury or harm when in part of the place of public accommodation (WAC 162-26-135, as added effective August 12, 1999).
Risk to property or other persons must be immediate or reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances, not remote or speculative. Risk to persons may be given more weight than risk to property. Risk of severe injury or harm may be given more weight than risk of slight injury or harm (WAC 162-26-135, as added effective August 12, 1999).
Annoyance on the part of staff or other customers of the place of public accommodation at the presence of the dog guide or service animal is not an unreasonable “risk to property or other persons” justifying the removal of the dog guide or service animal (WAC 162-26-135, as added effective August 12, 1999).
Risk of injury or harm to the dog guide or service animal is not a reason for a place of public accommodation to exclude the animal. The decision whether to bring the animal into a place of public accommodation under such circumstances most properly rests with the person with a disability using the dog guide or service animal (WAC 162-26-135, as added effective August 12, 1999).
When risk justifies the removal of a dog guide or service animal from the place of public accommodation, efforts must be made to reasonably accommodate the person with the disability (WAC 162-26-135, as added effective August 12, 1999).
Law other than the Law Against Discrimination governs liability for injury or harm. Generally, a person with a disability using a dog guide or service animal is responsible for the animal and may be held liable for the behavior and actions of the animal (WAC 162-26-135, as added effective August 12, 1999).
A person who negligently or maliciously kills or injures a dog guide or service animal is liable for a penalty of $1,000, to be paid to the user of the dog. In addition, the user or owner of the dog is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in pursuing any civil remedy (Sec. 49.60.370, as amended and recodified by Ch. 271, L. 1997, effective July 27, 1997).
Under “Layla's Law,” any person who has received notice that his or her behavior is interfering with the use of a dog guide or service animal who continues with reckless disregard to do so by obstructing, intimidating or otherwise jeopardizing the safety of the dog guide or service animal user or his or her dog guide or service animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, except that for a second or subsequent offense, it is a gross misdemeanor (Sec. 9.91.170, as amended by Ch. 53 (S. 5758), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
Any person who, with reckless disregard, allows his or her dog to interfere with the use of a dog guide or service animal by obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise jeopardizing the safety of the dog guide or service animal user or his or her dog guide or service animal is guilty of a misdemeanor, except that for a second or subsequent offense, it is a gross misdemeanor (Sec. 9.91.170, as amended by Ch. 53 (S. 5758), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
Any person who, with reckless disregard, injures, disables or causes the death of a dog guide or service animal is guilty of a gross misdemeanor (Sec. 9.91.170, as amended by Ch. 53 (S. 5758), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
Any person who, with reckless disregard, allows his or her dog to injure, disable or cause the death of a dog guide or service animal is guilty of a gross misdemeanor (Sec. 9.91.170, as amended by Ch. 53 (S. 5758), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
Any person who intentionally injures, disables, or causes the death of a dog guide or service animal is guilty of a class C felony (Sec.9.91.170, as amended by Ch. 53 (S. 5758), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
Any person who wrongfully obtains or exerts unauthorized control over a dog guide or service animal with the intent to deprive the dog guide or service animal user of his or her dog guide or service animal is guilty of theft in the first degree (Sec. 9.91.170, as amended by Ch. 53 (S. 5758), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
In any case in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of this section, he or she will also be ordered to make full restitution for all damages (Sec. 9.91.170, as amended by Ch. 53 (S. 5758), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
Exceptions.- It is not an unfair practice to operate a place of public accommodation with structural barriers to accessibility of the person with a disability when the structural barriers (WAC 162-26-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999):
were lawful when constructed; and
are presently lawful under the state building code and other law outside of the Law Against Discrimination.
This exemption does not relieve the operator of a place of public accommodation of the duty to make reasonable accommodation to the needs of persons with disabilities (WAC 162-26-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
It is not an unfair practice under Sec. 49.60.215 (see above) to deny a person service in a place of public accommodation because that person's behavior or actions constitute a risk to property or other persons (WAC 162-26-110, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
To come within this exception, the denial of service must be based on knowledge of the present behavior or actions of the individual who is not served (WAC 162-26-110, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Risk to property or other persons must be immediate and likely, not remote and speculative (WAC 162-26-110, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Risk of injury to persons may be given more weight than risk of injury to property. Risk of severe injury may be given more weight than risk of slight injury (WAC 162-26-110, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Risk to the person with a disability is not a reason to deny service (WAC 162-26-110, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Annoyance on the part of staff or customers of the place of public accommodation at the abnormal appearance or behavior of a person with a disability is not a “risk to property or other persons” justifying nonservice (WAC 162-26-110, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Public facilities.- As citizens, people with physical disabilities have the same rights as the able-bodied to the full and free use of the streets, highways, walkways, public buildings, public facilities, and other public places (Sec. 70.84.010(2)).
EMPLOYMENT
It is an unfair practice under the state's Law Against Discrimination for an employer to (WAC 162-22-025, as added effective August 12, 1999):
refuse to hire, discharge, bar from employment, or otherwise discriminate against an able worker with a disability or because of the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by an able worker with a disability; or
fail or refuse to make reasonable accommodation for an able worker with a disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by an able worker with a disability, unless to do so would impose an undue hardship; or
refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate against an able worker with a disability because the employer would be subject to the requirements of this chapter if the person were hired, promoted, etc.
Discrimination in favor of a person because of the person's disability is not an unfair practice (WAC 162-22-035, as added effective August 12, 1999).
Bona fide occupational qualifications.- An employer may discriminate on the basis of disability if a bona fide occupational qualification applies (WAC 162-22-045, as added effective August 12, 1999).
Undue hardship.- An employer must provide reasonable accommodation unless it can prove that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. An accommodation will be considered an undue hardship if the cost or difficulty is unreasonable in view of (WAC 162-22-075, as added effective August 12, 1999):
the size of and the resources available to the employer;
whether the cost can be included in planned remodeling or maintenance; and
the requirements of other laws and contracts, and other appropriate considerations.
Health care opinions.- Employers may seek a health care professional's opinion on whether a person's disability affects the proper performance of a particular job. The employer may also seek a health care professional's opinion on possible effective accommodations that would enable the person with a disability to properly perform the job. The health care professional's opinion will be given due weight in view of all the circumstances, including the extent of the professional's knowledge of the particular person and job, and the health care professional's relationship to the parties (WAC 162-22-090, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
A health care professional's conclusion will not be considered to be an opinion on whether the person can properly perform the particular job unless it (WAC 162-22-090, as amended effective August 12, 1999):
is based on the individual capabilities of the particular person, and not on generalizations as to the capabilities of all persons with the same disability; and
is based on knowledge of the actual sensory, mental and physical qualifications needed for proper performance of the particular job.
Employers are advised to provide the health care professional with the necessary information about the particular job and to inform the health care professional of the need for an individualized opinion (WAC 162-22-090, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Employee health care information must be kept in a confidential manner, separate from the employee's regular personnel files. The employer may share health care information only on a need to know basis. Supervisors and/or safety personnel may be informed of employee needs only if necessary to make appropriate work assignments or develop appropriate emergency response plans (WAC 162-22-090, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Dog guides and service animals.- It is an unfair practice for an employer to request that a trained dog guide or service animal be removed from the workplace, unless that employer can show that the presence, behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal constitutes an unreasonable risk to property or other persons (WAC 162-22-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
It is an unfair practice to remove a trained dog guide or service animal from the entire workplace because the animal presents a risk of injury or harm when in part of the workplace (WAC 162-22-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Risk to property or other persons must be immediate or reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances, not remote or speculative. Risk to persons may be given more weight than risk to property. Risk of severe injury or harm may be given more weight than risk of slight injury or harm (WAC 162-22-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Annoyance on the part of staff or other customers of the workplace at the presence of the dog guide or service animal is not an unreasonable “risk to property or other persons” justifying the removal of the dog guide or service animal (WAC 162-22-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
When risk justifies the removal of a dog guide or service animal from the workplace, efforts must be made to reasonably accommodate the person with the disability (WAC 162-22-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Risk of injury or harm to the dog guide or service animal is not a reason for an employer to remove or exclude the animal. The decision whether to bring the animal to the worksite under such conditions most properly rests with the person with a disability using the dog guide or service animal (WAC 162-22-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Law other than the Law Against Discrimination governs liability for injury or harm. Generally, a person with a disability using a dog guide or service animal is responsible for the animal and may be held liable for the behavior and actions of the animal (WAC 162-22-100, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Public employment.- Washington's White Cane Law provides that persons who are blind, visually handicapped, hearing impaired, and persons with other physical disabilities must be employed in the state service, in the service of the political subdivisions of the state, in the public schools, and in all other employment supported by public funds on the same terms and conditions as persons without disabilities (Sec. 70.84.080).
Equal public employment of persons with disabilities is not required if it is shown that the particular disability prevents the performance of the work involved (Sec. 70.84.080).
Any person or persons, firm or corporation, or the agent of any person or persons, firm or corporation, who interferes with the public employment rights of a person who is totally or partially blind or hearing impaired, or a person with another physical disability is guilty of a misdemeanor (Sec. 70.84.070).
Reasonable accommodation rules.- An employer must reasonably accommodate a known disability of a qualified candidate or employee as required by chapter 49.60 RCW and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (WAC 357-26-010, as adopted effective July 1, 2005).
For persons with disabilities, as defined by state or federal law, reasonable accommodation may include, but is not limited to (WAC 357-26-015. as adopted effective July 1, 2005):
Accommodation in application procedures, testing, and the interview process; or
Modifications or adjustments to a job, work method, or work environment that make it possible for a qualified person with a disability to perform the essential functions of a position, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment equal to employees without disabilities.
Policy and procedure requirements. In accordance with state and federal laws, employers must develop and make readily available a procedure regarding reasonable accommodation of employees with disabilities. Also, employers must develop and maintain a policy statement on reasonable accommodation (WAC 357-26-020, as adopted effective July 1, 2005).
Each employee who requests reasonable accommodation must be provided access to the employer's reasonable accommodation procedure in an accessible format. In addition, employees who request reasonable accommodation must be notified in writing that in the event he or she cannot be accommodated in his or her current position, and placement in an alternative vacant position is not possible, the appointing authority may initiate a disability separation (WAC 357-26-020, as adopted effective July 1, 2005).
Unable to perform the essential functions of a position. An employee who is unable to perform the essential functions of the employee's position due to mental, sensory, or physical incapacity may notify the employer that he or she does not wish to pursue accommodation and would like to be separated from employment. In this case, the appointing authority is not required to consider a reasonable accommodation and may initiate a disability separation (WAC 357-25-025, as adopted effective July 1, 2005).
Medical use of marijuana.- Washington has a medical use of marijuana law. However, the law does not require any health insurance provider to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana, nor does it require any accommodation of any on-site medical use of marijuana in any place of employment (Sec. 69.51A.060, as amended by S.B. 6032, L. 2007, effective July 22, 2007).
Note: The U.S. Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Raich, Dkt. No. 03-1454, June 6, 2005, ruled that federal authorities legally may prosecute persons using marijuana under state medical marijuana laws that allow such use.
TRANSPORTATION
Persons with physical disabilities are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges on (Sec. 70.84.010(3)):
Common carriers;
Airplanes;
Motor vehicles;
Railroad trains;
Motor buses;
Street cars;
Boats; and
All other public conveyances.
A person who negligently or maliciously kills or injures a guide or service dog is liable for a penalty of $1,000, to be paid to the user of the dog. In addition, the user or owner of the dog is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in pursuing any civil remedy (Sec. 49.60.370, as amended and recodified by Ch. 271, L. 1997, effective July 27, 1997).
See also summary of “Layla's Law,” above.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
The Department of Social and Health Services must maintain a program whereby an individual of school age or older who possesses a hearing or speech impairment is provided with telecommunications equipment, software, and/or peripheral devices, digital or otherwise, that is determined by the Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing to be necessary for such a person to access and use telecommunications transmission services effectively (Sec. 43.20A.725, as amended by Ch. 254 (S. 6448), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
The Department of Social and Health Services must maintain a program where telecommunications relay services of a human or electronic nature will be provided to connect hearing impaired, deaf-blind, or speech impaired persons with persons who do not have a hearing or speech impairment. Such telecommunications relay services must provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing or speech impairment to engage in voice, tactile, or visual communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing or speech impairment to communicate using voice or visual communication services by wire or radio (Sec. 43.20A.725, as amended by Ch. 254 (S. 6448), L. 2003, effective July 1, 2004).
HOUSING
It is an unfair practice for any person, for profit, to induce any person to sell or rent any real property by representations regarding the entry into the neighborhood of a person with any sensory, mental or physical disability or the use of a dog guide or service animal by a person who is blind, deaf, or physically disabled (Sec. 49.60.223, as amended by S. 5123, L. 2007, effective July 22, 2007).
It is an unfair practice for a landlord to inquire into matters personal to an applicant with a disability beyond what is necessary and appropriate to the landlord-tenant relationship (WAC 162-38-110, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Dog guides/service animals.- It is an unfair practice for a landlord to refuse to rent to a person with a disability because the person uses a trained dog guide or service animal. A landlord's no-pet policy cannot be applied to a dog guide or service animal of a person with a disability (WAC 162-38-100(3), as amended effective August 12, 1999).
It is not an unfair practice for a landlord to enforce on a tenant with a disability using a dog guide or service animal its standard cleaning or damage deposit if the same deposit is enforced equally on all tenants. It is an unfair practice for a landlord to enforce on a tenant with a disability using a dog guide or service animal a pet deposit in addition to any standard cleaning or damage deposit (WAC 162-38-100(4) and (5), as amended effective August 12, 1999).
It is an unfair practice to request that a trained dog guide or service animal be removed, unless the person can show (WAC 162-38-105, as amended effective August 12, 1999):
that the presence, behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal constitutes an unreasonable risk of injury or harm to property or other persons; and
a reasonable attempt to eliminate the behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal that constitutes an unreasonable risk fails.
It is an unfair practice to remove a trained dog guide or service animal from the entire rental property because the animal presents a risk of injury or harm when in part of the rental property (WAC 162-38-105, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Risk to property or other persons must be immediate or reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances, not remote or speculative. Risk to persons may be given more weight than risk to property. Risk of severe injury or harm may be given more weight than risk of slight injury or harm (WAC 162-38-105, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Annoyance on the part of staff or other tenants of the rental property at the presence of the dog guide or service animal is not an unreasonable “risk to property or other persons” justifying the removal of the dog guide or service animal (WAC 162-38-105, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Risk of injury or harm to the dog guide or service animal is not a reason to remove or exclude the animal. The decision whether to bring the animal into the rental property under such circumstances most properly rests with the person with a disability using the dog guide or service animal (WAC 162-38-105, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
When risk justifies the removal of a dog guide or service animal from a rental property, efforts must be made to reasonably accommodate the person with the disability (WAC 162-38-105, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
Law other than the Law Against Discrimination governs liability for injury or harm. Generally, a person with a disability using a dog guide or service animal is responsible for the animal and may be held liable for the actions or behavior of the animal (WAC 162-38-105, as amended effective August 12, 1999).
WHO TO CONTACT
Contact the Human Rights Commission, 711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 402, P.O. Box 42490, Olympia, WA 98504-2490, Telephone: (360) 753-6770, Fax: (360) 586-2282, TDD: (800) 300-7525.
<p>Contact the Human Rights Commission, 711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 402, P.O.</p>