Timberlane Mobile Home Park v. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COM'N

• Decision Date: 17 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. 30913-1-II.,30913-1-II.
• Citation: 95 P.3d 1288,122 Wash. App. 896,122 Wn. App. 896
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: TIMBERLANE MOBILE HOME PARK, Dale Lang and Linda Hougan, Appellants, Vern Jacobsen and Amy Carr, Petitioners, v. WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, presenting the case in support of the Complaint of Candida Campbell and Scott Campbell, Respondents.

95 P.3d 1288

122 Wn. App. 896

122 Wash. App. 896

TIMBERLANE MOBILE HOME PARK, Dale Lang and Linda Hougan, Appellants, Vern Jacobsen and Amy Carr, Petitioners, v. WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, presenting the case in support of the Complaint of Candida Campbell and Scott Campbell, Respondents.

No. 30913-1-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

August 17, 2004.

Robert E.L. Bennett, Attorney at Law, Vancouver, WA, for Appellant.

Paul O. Goulding, Attorney at Law, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.

ARMSTRONG, J.

Timberlane Mobile Home Park appeals the superior court decision affirming an administrative determination that it discriminated against Candida and Scott Campbell because of Candida's use of a service animal. Timberlane argues that Candida's dog is not a service animal because it was not trained to assist or accommodate Candida's disability. Because the administrative law judge found that the dog had not received training to assist Candida, it erred in deciding that Timberlane discriminated against Candida and Scott fails. Accordingly, we reverse.

FACTS

The Washington State Human Rights Commission filed a complaint on behalf of Candida Campbell and her brother, Scott Campbell, against Timberlane Mobile Home Park, and certain owners and employees, alleging that Timberlane had discriminated against the Campbells in violation of RCW 49.60.222 by expelling Candida from the trailer she lived in because of her disability and use of a service animal.

After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Timberlane's stated reasons for denying Candida's application were pretextual and that it had discriminated against the Campbells by denying their rental application because Candida used a service animal. The court awarded $3,044 in actual damages and $10,000 for emotional distress and mental suffering to Candida, $2,000 for emotional distress and mental suffering to Scott, and ordered Timberlane to pay a $2,000 civil penalty.

Between August and October 1997, Candida, Scott, and Scott's three children began living in a mobile home owned by their parents on Timberlane's property in Winlock, Washington. The rental applications Scott and his parents completed listed four occupants. The lease Scott signed had a "no ... pets" clause. Administrative Record (AR) at 11-12. Timberlane does not challenge the ALJ's finding that Candida lived openly as a resident from the time she moved to Timberlane. According to the Campbells, only Scott and his children were listed on the lease because Candida had been the victim of a violent crime.

Shortly after Candida moved to Timberlane, a vehicle struck and killed her pet Pomeranian, Little Dog. Candida replaced Little Dog with Spicey, a five-week old Pomeranian puppy. Because Candida wanted Spicey to bond to her instead of Scott and his children, she kept Spicey in a playpen in her bedroom. Candida taught Spicey to follow commands, such as to stay, come, sit, and walk with her. Candida also taught Spicey to jump up on the back of a chair so she could put her leash on or pick her up without bending over. Candida rewarded Spicey with food and attention for good behavior; she scolded Spicey for bad behavior. Candida drew on her experiences as a program aide working with autistic children. But Candida had no training to be an animal trainer, nor had Spicey received any service animal training from a professional.

Candida experiences severe migraine headaches¹ about three times a week. Her symptoms include vision problems, nausea, vomiting, and tenderness on her right side. When she has enough warning, Candida can take a nasal spray that sometimes prevents a migraine. Once she has a migraine, others can assist her by taking her to the bathroom, getting her pain and nausea medication, or bringing her ice packs and cold cloths.

When Spicey was seven to nine months old, she began responding to Candida's migraines. If Candida had a migraine, Spicey found Scott or another person nearby and would "freak out" by running, jumping, barking, scratching on a door, or pulling at their leg to alert them. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 13. The person alerted would then assist Candida. While Candida receives assistance, Spicey stands quietly and watches. After Candida receives assistance, Spicey is told she is a "good girl" and may be given a treat. CP at 271.

On March 23, 1998, Timberlane notified Scott that he was in violating his lease because, among other reasons, Candida and Spicey lived in his trailer. Candida formally applied for tenancy at Timberlane in June. On July 23, Timberlane issued a third notice to Scott, stating that all tenants needed to be approved and that Candida's application had been denied because of credit problems. But the credit check was not actually run until July 24. On August 19, Candida wrote Timberlane, requesting tenancy and a reasonable accommodation for Spicey. The same day, her neurologist submitted a letter documenting her migraines and stating that it was reasonable for her to have Spicey as a service animal to alert others when Candida was ill.

On September 22, Timberlane's attorney notified Scott that if Candida did not move, he would begin eviction proceedings. The same day, he sent Candida a demand to vacate. In September 1999, Candida left Timberlane and moved into her parents' home.

The ALJ found that Timberlane discriminated against Candida by denying her application because she used a service animal. After the Clark County Superior Court affirmed the ALJ's orders, Timberlane appealed.

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a reviewing court may reverse an agency's adjudicative decision if, among other reasons, the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); Aponte v. Dep't of Soc. and Health Servs., 92 Wash.App. 604, 615, 965 P.2d 626 (1998). We apply the APA's standards directly to the agency record, sitting in the same position as the superior court. Burnham v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 115 Wash.App. 435, 438, 63 P.3d 816, review denied, 150 Wash.2d 1013, 79 P.3d 445 (2003) (citing City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wash.2d 38, 45, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998)).

The party challenging an agency's action bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). We review factual findings to determine if substantial evidence supports it, RCW 34.05.570(3)(e); we review legal conclusions de novo to determine if the hearing judge correctly applied the law, including whether the factual findings support the legal conclusions. In re Farina, 94 Wash.App. 441, 450, 972 P.2d 531 (1999). Timberlane contends that Spicey is...