Court hears dispute over whether HOA enforcement counts as a real-estate 'service' under Washington anti-discrimination law

A three-judge panel heard oral argument in Human Rights Commission v. Summerwalk Homeowners Association, No. 616432, over whether enforcement of homeowners association covenants against a homeowner can be treated as a service connected to a real-estate transaction under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Cassandra Baker, attorney for the Washington State Human Rights Commission, asked the court to reverse an administrative law judge's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings.

Baker told the panel that Joseph Mitchell, an African American man, purchased a home in the Summerwalk development and, as part of the sale, was required by his deed to accept the community declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), mandatory HOA membership, and payment of dues for property-management services. A few months after moving in, Baker said, the HOA or its property manager sent Mitchell notices alleging nuisance noise violations; she argued that enforcement of the CC&Rs is a service “furnished in connection with the real estate transaction,” bringing the conduct within WLAD's real-estate provisions.

The Commission's counsel emphasized two points: that the ALJ treated a merits question as jurisdictional, and that RCW 49.60.241(c) and RCW 49.60.222(1)(b) ( provisions of WLAD cited in briefing) require investigation when a complaint alleges discrimination in a real-estate context and do not impose a temporal cutoff on when connected services may occur. Baker questioned whether it would make sense to allow an HOA to enforce covenants against a homeowner on a discriminatory basis with no recourse simply because the enforcement happened years after a purchase.

Michelle Nassar, appearing for respondent Summerwalk HOA, Zamora Montez, and J and M Property Management, countered that WLAD's statute and its defined list of "real estate transactions" (sale, rental, lease, etc.) limit the Commission's authority. Nassar urged the court to read the statute narrowly: the sale is a discrete transaction, and community governance and enforcement of CC&Rs are voluntary, post-sale activities governed through HOA processes (member votes, covenant amendment procedures) rather than services purchased as part of the original sale.

The panel repeatedly probed both sides about the meaning of "services furnished in connection with the real estate transaction," pressing whether the phrase carries an ordinary temporal meaning and whether a broad reading would create anomalous results—linking enforcement decades after a sale to an old transaction. Counsel debated whether Tafoya v. Washington State Human Rights Commission (cited by the Commission) governs here; Baker said Tafoya supported a broader reading and cited analogous Fair Housing Act authority (discussed at argument) as persuasive, while respondents distinguished Tafoya as addressing ongoing lease relationships rather than a one-time sale.

Both sides acknowledged factual overlap that may require investigation: Baker argued the Commission was required to investigate under WLAD provisions; Nassar stressed that the inquiry should first confirm a qualifying real-estate transaction before exploring whether a particular HOA enforcement act is a connected service. No decision was announced from the bench; after rebuttal by the Commission, the panel concluded argument and indicated it would take the matter under advisement.

The case presents a statutory interpretation question with practical implications for homeowners and HOAs: whether state anti-discrimination law authorizes agency investigation into discriminatory enforcement of private covenants that stem from, or follow, a property sale. The court’s forthcoming opinion will determine whether the Commission may proceed with its complaint against the Summerwalk HOA or whether the ALJ’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction stands.