Court hears dispute over whether HOA covenant enforcement falls under Washington anti-discrimination law

At an appellate hearing this morning in case no. 616432, counsel for the Washington State Human Rights Commission urged the court to reverse an administrative law judge’s dismissal, arguing that enforcement of Summerwalk Homeowners Association covenants against homeowner Joseph Mitchell is covered by the state’s anti‑discrimination statute as a service tied to the original real‑estate transaction.

"The court should reverse the administrative law judge's final order dismissing the commission's amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction," counsel Cassandra Baker told the panel, arguing the ALJ treated a merits question as jurisdictional and reached the wrong conclusion on whether covenant enforcement is a covered service.

The commission’s argument, Baker said, rests on the premise that Mitchell, an African American man who purchased a home in the Summerwalk development, was required by his deed to be bound by the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), to become an HOA member and to pay mandatory dues for property‑management services that would be provided in the future. Those obligations, Baker said, create a service relationship tied to the sale: "The enforcement of the covenants that govern every property in the community is a service to the community," she said, and the enforcement notices themselves stated they help "protect everyone's property values."

Responding, Michelle Nassar, appearing for respondent Summerwalk HOA and related parties, urged a narrower reading. She told the court the statute limits the Commission’s jurisdiction to defined "real estate transactions" and that community enforcement of CC&Rs is an optional governance practice, not a service purchased as part of a sale: "The sale transaction only involves the seller and the purchaser. It doesn't mention the HOA," Nassar said.

The bench probed whether the statute’s language permits an expansive temporal reach—i.e., enforcement actions years after a sale—and whether the legislature intended an agency investigation into long‑past neighborhood disputes. Baker replied that the statutory provision cited in the transcript (rendered there as "RCW 49 62 22 1 b") imposes no explicit temporal limitation on services "furnished in connection" with a transaction and that the Commission is required to investigate complaints that allege violations of the real‑estate provisions (the transcript also cites "RCW 49 62 41 c"). Baker emphasized the remedial purpose underlying the statute and cited precedent the Commission views as supportive, including Tafoya v. Washington State Human Rights Commission and a federal appellate decision involving post‑purchase enforcement of condo rules (referred to in argument as the Bloch/Block matter).

Nassar countered that Tafoya is distinguishable because it concerned continuing rental/lease relationships that are explicitly listed in the statute and that permitting agency oversight of private HOA rule enforcement would subject homeowners and neighbor disputes to state investigations: "This is a private matter. It is not for the state to intervene," she said.

Both sides were asked to address whether the statutory phrase "services associated with the real estate transaction" should be read narrowly—limited to lending, brokerage and other discrete transactional services—or broadly to include covenant enforcement that flows from mandatory membership terms. The panel’s questions repeatedly focused on (1) whether a qualifying "transaction" must be ongoing or discrete, and (2) whether the statute’s remedial goals require a liberal construction that would cover post‑sale enforcement actions.

The oral argument concluded after each side reserved time for rebuttal; the panel thanked counsel and ended the second of three cases for the morning. The court did not announce a decision at the hearing.