Washington appeals court: discriminatory HOA covenant enforcement after a purchase can fall under the Law Against Discrimination
Washington appeals court: discriminatory HOA covenant enforcement after a purchase can fall under the Law Against Discrimination
2026-10-04 · Washington · Courts
What happened. On July 21, 2026, Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals held that an association's discriminatory enforcement of its covenants against an owner after the purchase can fall within the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The decision is Washington State Human Rights Commission v. Summerwalk Homeowners Association LLC, No. 61643-2-II. The panel reversed an administrative dismissal and remanded.1
The facts as the court recites them
Joseph Mitchell, a Black homeowner, bought a townhome in the Summerwalk community in January 2020. The purchase obligated him to comply with the association's covenants, conditions and restrictions. About eleven months later he reported that the association enforced the covenants against him differently than against white homeowners. The Human Rights Commission investigated and found reasonable cause. When the matter did not settle, the Commission filed a complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings.1
An administrative law judge dismissed the complaint. The ALJ reasoned that covenant enforcement fell outside WLAD because it was not close enough in time to the property acquisition. The Commission appealed directly to the Court of Appeals. These are allegations the case sent back for further proceedings, not findings that discrimination occurred.
What the court held
WLAD reaches discrimination "in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a real estate transaction or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith." The panel (Judges Price, Maxa and Che; Price authoring) read that language to cover enforcement of covenants that the purchase itself imposed, because the owner's membership and covenant duties flow from the transaction. It also said that limiting the protection by timing would produce an "unlikely, absurd, or strained" result contrary to the statute's broad purpose.1
What it changes for associations and owners
The ruling removes one procedural route for dismissing a discriminatory-enforcement complaint: the argument that enforcement came too long after the sale to be "in connection with" the transaction. Associations that enforce covenants selectively now face that claim without the timing defense in Division II's territory, and owners alleging disparate enforcement can bring the claim through the Commission process the way Mr. Mitchell did.
The decision concerns whether the claim is covered. It does not decide whether Summerwalk actually enforced its covenants discriminatorily; that question returns to the administrative forum.
What to watch next
A petition for review to the Washington Supreme Court, or a published-opinion motion, would change the picture. This article reflects the opinion text as reproduced by a case-law database, not the court's own PDF, which could not be retrieved at the time of writing.
Related Washington HOA Topics
Stay on top of Washington HOA law
Every week: new Washington legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.