Condominium Housing Disability Discrimination

Respondent 1 is a condominium homeowners association’s property (hereinafter HOA). Respondent 2 is a real estate management company (hereinafter REM) and manages HOA’s condominium complex.  Complainant is blind and owns a unit at HOA. Complainant requested railings for her unit entry.  REM independently determined the railing was unnecessary.  However, both REM and HOA approved the railing under the condition Complainant pay for it.  Complainant alleged REM did not properly advise HOA regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter ADA), Municipal and State laws.  Both Respondents told Complainant the railing must match the building and be black metal.  Complainant alleged that an assessment conducted by an agency that provides grants for ADA accessibility approved wooden railings for her specific visual disability needs and installed them.  The Respondents then issued Complainant a violation for unauthorized modifications, demanding she remove the railings or replace them with black metal, and notified her she would be issued daily fines, up to foreclosure proceedings, if she failed to comply by June 27, 2024.  Complainant explained to both Respondents that this was a disability request for a variance in the policy, explained her need for wood and not metal, and offered to either paint the rails to match the building or black to match other metal rails.  Her request was denied.  In denying the request, Respondents told Complainant that a different owner who used a cane did not have issues with the black metal.

Both Respondents denied discriminating against Complainant.  REM denied it was the correct party to defend HOA’s decision, asserting they have no authority over final decisions made by HOA.  REM further advised HOA to contact legal counsel, and stated it did not fine Complainant. The HOA asserts Complainant’s unit is privately owned and neither the ADA, Alaska state nor municipal laws require it to pay for modifications, even if it is to accommodate a disability. HOA also asserts the railing installation is not a public accommodation and the HOA’s role is to ensure modifications are consistent with community standards. It denies that Complainant provided any information as to why she required wood rails instead of metal or why her disability prevented her from painting the railings black.

Investigation found that both respondents aided and/or abetted each other in the discrimination of the Complainant.  REM is tasked with advising and managing properties but has no policies regarding proper advisement for disability accommodations, as demonstrated through its communications with HOA. HOA also has no policies regarding reasonable accommodations, despite its control over all common areas, and retains the ability to foreclose upon owners’ properties.  HOA ignored even the most basic suggestion to speak to its attorney about Complainant’s request for variance to the policy allowing her the wooden rails, issuing a directive to REM to proceed with the fines and threat of foreclosure, which REM did not hesitate to do. Both Respondents have ignored Complainant’s request for variance and request for paint samples to ensure they either paint the rails to match the building or the black metal. Investigation revealed the issue has been ongoing since 2022 and that both respondents were always aware of Complainant’s blindness.  The actions of the Respondents caused a two-year delay in Complainant obtaining a safe and accessible railing and today the parties remain at an impasse pending this Commission’s outcome.  Conciliation efforts were unsuccessful and a Certification of Conciliation Failure was issued March 17, 2025.  As of March 31, 2025, staff is reviewing the case for administrative hearing.