Background
Joseph Mitchell, who is Black, purchased a townhome in the Summerwalk Duets Development in January 2020. His closing documents required him to comply with the development’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Later that year, Mitchell reported to the Washington State Human Rights Commission that Summerwalk Homeowners’ Association, its management company, and its manager were enforcing those covenants against him differently than against white homeowners.
After investigating, the Commission found reasonable cause to believe discrimination had occurred. When efforts to resolve the matter failed, it filed an administrative complaint alleging that Summerwalk’s disparate enforcement created a hostile living environment, interfered with Mitchell’s enjoyment of his home, and caused economic and emotional harm.
An administrative law judge dismissed the complaint, reasoning that post-purchase enforcement of HOA covenants was not sufficiently connected to a “real estate transaction” under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination and therefore fell outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Commission appealed directly to the Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. It first held that the ALJ mistakenly treated the issue as one of subject-matter jurisdiction. A race-discrimination complaint arguably involving a real estate transaction falls within the general category of disputes that the Commission has statutory authority to investigate and adjudicate. Whether the alleged conduct is sufficiently connected to a real estate transaction instead concerns the merits of the claim.
The court also held that RCW 49.60.222(1)(b) covers an HOA’s discriminatory enforcement of covenants after a homeowner purchases the property. Mitchell became bound by Summerwalk’s covenants and subject to its enforcement authority as a direct result of his purchase. Covenant enforcement therefore constitutes the furnishing of services in connection with a real estate transaction.
The statute contains no restriction limiting its protection to conduct occurring before or during a property acquisition. Reading such a temporal limitation into the law would conflict with the legislature’s command to construe Washington’s antidiscrimination protections liberally. Washington precedent and federal decisions interpreting materially similar Fair Housing Act language reinforced that conclusion. The court remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether Summerwalk actually discriminated against Mitchell.
Key Takeaways
- Washington’s Law Against Discrimination can reach an HOA’s discriminatory enforcement of rules and covenants after a home sale closes.
- An HOA’s enforcement authority may qualify as a service connected with a real estate transaction when that authority arises from purchase documents binding the homeowner to the HOA’s covenants.
- The Commission had subject-matter jurisdiction over the category of dispute; whether the alleged conduct violated the statute was a merits question.
- The decision addresses statutory coverage only and does not determine whether Summerwalk discriminated against Mitchell.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Washington’s housing-discrimination protections do not end when a buyer acquires a home. HOAs and their managers may face liability under the state antidiscrimination law if they selectively enforce community rules based on race or another protected characteristic.
For administrative proceedings, the opinion also distinguishes an agency’s power to hear a type of controversy from whether a particular claim ultimately satisfies the governing statute. That distinction prevents potentially deficient claims from being incorrectly dismissed as outside the agency’s subject-matter jurisdiction.