Background
Robert and Brenda Fahn rented a Kauaʻi property managed by The Parrish Collection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because Robert had heart disease and faced an increased risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19, the Fahns asked Parrish to waive a lease provision requiring weekly cleanings by Parrish’s housekeeping staff. Parrish rejected the requested waiver, proposed that the Fahns leave during the cleanings, and later terminated the tenancy.
After the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission found reasonable cause to believe unlawful discrimination had occurred, the Commission sued under Hawaiʻi’s fair-housing law, alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in an interactive process. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice after considering materials outside the pleadings. The Intermediate Court of Appeals treated the ruling as summary judgment, vacated it, and remanded because Parrish had not negated the relevant elements of the accommodation claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court affirmed the ICA’s judgment vacating summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Adopting a framework informed by federal fair-housing and disability law, the court held that a plaintiff initially must show that an accommodation may be necessary to provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing and that the accommodation is reasonable on its face or, alternatively, reasonable under the particular facts. Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the requested accommodation is unreasonable, including through evidence of undue hardship.
The court further held that a defendant may offer an alternative accommodation as part of its burden to show that the plaintiff’s requested accommodation is unreasonable. Because the lower courts and parties had applied different standards, the circuit court must evaluate the evidence under the newly announced framework on remand. Separately, the court held that neither HRS § 515-3(a)(9) nor HAR § 12-46-306 creates standalone liability for failing to engage in an interactive process, although such engagement is encouraged and may bear on whether the statutory elements are satisfied.
Key Takeaways
- A fair-housing plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing both necessity and reasonableness for a requested disability accommodation.
- After that showing, the housing provider must demonstrate unreasonableness and may rely on an adequate alternative accommodation as part of that defense.
- Hawaiʻi’s current fair-housing law does not recognize an independent claim based solely on a breakdown in the interactive process.
Why It Matters
The decision supplies Hawaiʻi courts and housing practitioners with the governing burden-shifting framework for disability-accommodation claims under HRS § 515-3(a)(9). It also makes clear that these claims require a fact-specific assessment of necessity, efficacy, costs, burdens, and proposed alternatives.
At the same time, the court drew a firm distinction between the statutory duty to provide a reasonable accommodation and the recommended practice of discussing possible accommodations: a failure to engage does not itself create liability under current Hawaiʻi fair-housing law.