Skip to content

Alaska StateCommission For Human Rights

Accessibility Sitemap

Public Hearing Summaries

Note: Click on the case title to download the case PDF.

Emily Stevenson vs. PacRim Properties LLC, and Commodore Park Townhome Condominiums

  • Date of Decision:
  • Basis: Physical/Mental disability
  • Resolution: Active Case
  • Pubic hearing summary:

    Stevenson alleged Commodore Park Townhome Condominiums (hereinafter her HOA), her homeowners’ association, and PacRim Properties, LLC, the HOA’s real estate management company, are contractually responsible for managing her HOA’s condominium complex and they failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her. Stevenson, who is blind, requested railings for her unit entry. REM independently determined the railing was unnecessary. However, both PacRim and the HOA approved the railing under the condition Complainant pay for it. Complainant alleged PacRim did not properly advise her HOA regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter ADA), municipal law, and state law. Both Respondents told Stevenson 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 she installed them herself. The Respondents then issued Stevenson 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. Stevenson 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 to 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. PacRim denied it was the correct party to defend the HOA’s decision, asserting they have no authority over final decisions made by HOA. PacRim further advised the HOA to contact legal counsel and stated it did not fine Stevenson. The HOA asserts Complainant’s unit is privately owned and neither the ADA nor state or municipal laws require it to pay for modifications, even if it is to accommodate a disability. The 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 Stevenson 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. The management company is tasked with advising and managing properties but has no policies regarding proper advisement for disability accommodations, as demonstrated through its communications with the HOA. The HOA also has no policies regarding reasonable accommodations, despite its control over all common areas, and retains the ability to foreclose upon owners’ properties. The 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 PacRim to proceed with the fines and threat of foreclosure, which PacRim did not hesitate to do. Both Respondents ignored Complainant’s request for variance and request for paint samples to ensure Stevenson either paints 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 Stevenson obtaining a safe and accessible railing to reasonably accommodate her disability. Conciliation efforts were unsuccessful, and a Certification of Conciliation Failure was issued March 17, 2025. An Accusation was filed with OAH on May 15, 2025. A status hearing was held on October 20, 2025, at which time the partes agreed to participate in the Office of Administrative Hearings’ alternative dispute resolution process. As of December 31, 2025, the matter is stayed pending mediation.