The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 18 - 08-05-2020 - RHI - Opening Brief in Opposition of Findings of Violations re_ Red LionITEM NO. 18 HEX-000147 RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS’ OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF FINDINGS OF VIOLATION REGARDING RED LION INN DE- INTENSIFICATION SHELTER - 1 Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101-2380 206) 628-6600 7177652.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER In Re the Matter of Request For Hearing by Renton Hotel Investors, LLC and King County NO. CODE- 20-00321 RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS’ OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF FINDINGS OF VIOLATION REGARDING RED LION INN DE- INTENSIFICATION SHELTER I.Introduction Renton Hotel Investors (“RHI”) is the owner of the Red Lion Inn, the property subjection to the Notices of Violations. RHI joins in the arguments forwarded by King County in challenging the notices of violations. Additionally, RHI asserts that the Notices of Violations and such code enforcement is a violation of the American with Disabilities Act. The City of Renton (“City”) has specifically and discriminatorily targeted a group of disabled individuals through its actions, and has failed to provide any accommodations under the law. As such, the City’s actions are discriminatory and should not be deemed appropriate. II. Statement of Facts RHI relies upon the same facts submitted by parties in this action. HEX-000148 RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS’ OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF FINDINGS OF VIOLATION REGARDING RED LION INN DE- INTENSIFICATION SHELTER - 2 Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101-2380 206) 628-6600 7177652.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 III. Authority and Argument A. The City’s Actions are Discriminatory and Violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act provides, in relevant part, that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Rehabilitation Act contains similar restrictions and prohibitions.See 29 U.S.C. §794(a). Congress enacted the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for the purpose of “provid[ing] a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1). In a provision frequently cited by courts as justification for a liberal and expansive application of the ADA, Congress found that: Individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society. 42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(7);see,e.g. Bay Area Addiction Research, 179 F.3d at 731. Relevant here because the City is alleging zoning violations, the Ninth Circuit and others have long recognized that the “Rehabilitation Act and the ADA apply to zoning because zoning ‘is a normal function of a governmental entity.’”Id. at 731, quoting Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 47 (2nd Cir. 1997); other citations omitted. HEX-000149 RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS’ OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF FINDINGS OF VIOLATION REGARDING RED LION INN DE- INTENSIFICATION SHELTER - 3 Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101-2380 206) 628-6600 7177652.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Furthermore, there can be no serious dispute that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act protect the population at issue in this case. The ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability,” which is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. 12112(a) and §12102(2)(A). King County and DESC are implementing a program – amidst a global pandemic and national, state, and local health emergency, for the purpose of providing community-based services to homeless people in crisis suffering from mental illness or drug or alcohol dependency. By definition, such persons are disabled under the act.See,Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 118 S. Ct. 2196, 141 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1998) (drug dependency constitutes an impairment for purposes of the ADA);Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 281 F.3d 333 (2nd Cir. 2002) (alcoholism and drug addiction constitute a mental and physical impairment under both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act). It is a certain reality that should the City’s discriminatory action be allowed to stand, King County and DESC will likely be forced to shut down this program at the RHI premises, denying disabled individuals the services that the County had identified as so critically needed, and put those disabled individuals in harm’s way – including death – during a Pandemic the likes of which has not occurred for over 100 years. The City’s discriminatory actions constitute per se violations of both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The City has failed to demonstrate that it is currently taking similar actions or issuing similar Notices of Violations against other hotels that may have clients staying for in their facility for a long period of time, or violating the broad definition of “hotel use.” The City will HEX-000150 RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS’ OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF FINDINGS OF VIOLATION REGARDING RED LION INN DE- INTENSIFICATION SHELTER - 4 Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101-2380 206) 628-6600 7177652.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not be able to demonstrate they have conducted any investigations regarding similar violations of any other establishments. This is because the City has targeted only RHI. They City may profess that it sympathetic to the plight of this disabled population and has no issues with serving this disabled population. However, the Examiner need only scratch superficially below the surface to recognize that the City only became engaged and targeted RHI once it agreed to lease the Premises to the County for the purpose of providing services to this disable population. In no uncertain terms, the City is targeting a population of disabled individuals which it believes are undesirable in its community. Such conduct and actions are the very reason the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act were enacted, and the Examiner should not condone the City’s discriminatory behavior. B. RHI Has Standing to Assert These Claims. RHI expects that the City will argue that RHI does not have prudential standing to bring a claim under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. This argument should fail. Although a party is generally limited to asserting his own rights and interests and not those of others, as numerous courts have already noted in the ADA context, Congress may “empower one party to bring suit because of harm it suffers due to unlawful discrimination against another party.”A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, 515 F.3d 356, 363 (4th Cir. 2008);see also MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington,293 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir 2002), quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975) (“[P]ersons to whom Congress has granted a right of action, either expressly or by clear implication, may have standing to seek relief on the basis of the legal rights and interests of others, and indeed, may invoke the general public interest in support of their claim.”). HEX-000151 RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS’ OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF FINDINGS OF VIOLATION REGARDING RED LION INN DE- INTENSIFICATION SHELTER - 5 Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101-2380 206) 628-6600 7177652.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In enacting the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, Congress has done just that. The ADA’s enforcement provisions broadly state that the statute extends relief to “any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. §12133 (emphasis added); likewise, the Rehabilitation Act’s prohibitions can be enforced by “any person aggrieved” by discrimination against the disabled. 29 U.S.C. §794(a)(2) (emphasis added). The statutes demonstrate “a congressional intention to define standing to bring a private action under [the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA] as broadly as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution.”Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 47 (2nd Cir. 1997). There is simply no requirement in either statute that the plaintiff itself be disabled. Based on these principals, courts have repeatedly held that parties harmed by a government action that discriminates against the disabled—though not disabled themselves— have standing to seek damages under the ADA.See, e.g., Bay Area Addiction Research,179 F.3d 725; A Helping Hand LLC,515 F.3d 356; MX Group, Inc., 293 F.3d 326; and other cases cited herein. In the one case that suggested otherwise,Discovery House, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, the Seventh Circuit denied standing to an association that brought suit on behalf of its members, seeking damages for violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, stating that the remedies “must, at the very least, be those which directly benefit the disabled.” 319 F.3d 277, 281 (7th Cir. 2003). The Third Circuit soundly distinguished standing in that case, however, from the type asserted here. “Where an association asserts claims solely on behalf of its members, standing depends in substantial measure on the nature of relief sought.”Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Township of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 406 (3rd Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, under the ADA a party may “be granted standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from HEX-000152 RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS’ OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF FINDINGS OF VIOLATION REGARDING RED LION INN DE- INTENSIFICATION SHELTER - 6 Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101-2380 206) 628-6600 7177652.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities” it may itself enjoy.Id., internal quotations and citations omitted. The City must concede that its action will harm RHI by imposing fines and forcing RHI to terminate its agreement with King County. The underlying basis for the violations is that RHI is accommodating and facilitating the delivery of services for a statutorily recognized disabled population. Any argument regarding standing should be rejected. IV. Conclusion RHI joins King County in asserting that the City’s actions are preempted, and these violations are not valid. Additionally, these violations are discriminatory under the ADA, and the City fails to articulate what accommodation, if any, it has provided to clearly identified disabled population. These violations should not be found sustained. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of August, 2020. s/ Sumeer Singla _______________________ Sumeer Singla, WSBA #32852 WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2380 Telephone: (206) 628-6600 Fax: (206) 628-6611 Email: ssingla@williamskastner.com Attorney for Renton Hotel Investors HEX-000153 RENTON HOTEL INVESTORS’ OPENING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF FINDINGS OF VIOLATION REGARDING RED LION INN DE- INTENSIFICATION SHELTER - 7 Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98101-2380 206) 628-6600 7177652.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on the below date, we caused to be served upon certain counsel of record via email at the address below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document as follows: Howard Schneiderman Howard.schneiderman@kingcounty.gov Young-Jung Kim Jina-kim@kingcounty.gov Lena Madden Lena.madden@kingcounty.gov Shane Moloney smoloney@rentonwa.gov Leslie Clark lclark@rentonwa.gov Alex Tuttle atuttle@rentonwa.gov Signed at Seattle, Washington this 5th day of August, 2020. s/Kami R. Mejia Kami R. Mejia Legal Assistant HEX-000154