Timberlane Mobile Home Park v. Human Rights Commission ex rel. Campbell
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, 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. Accordingly, we reverse.
FACTS
The Washington State Human Rights Commission…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 KalakauaDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2003
- Aponte v. Department of Social & Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
- Burnham v. Department of Social & Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
- Burnham v. STATE, DSHSCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lucas v. Riverside Park Condominiums Unit Owners Ass'nNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
- Hardee v. Department of Social & Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Tafoya v. Human Rights CommissionCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Raven v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICESCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- Storms v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.