Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates Homeowners' Association

Plaintiffs alleging housing discrimination must either show “direct evidence of discriminatory intent” or indirect evidence such that a reasonable factfinder could infer discriminatory intent, like similarly situated individuals not in the protected class claimed by plaintiff treated differently. See Miller v. Racing Commission, 298 Or App 70, 90 (2019); Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 143 Or App 450, 457 (1996), aff’d, 329 Or 303 (1999).

Residents were denied water keys by Klamath Falls Forest Estates Homeowners’ Association (HOA), the HOA covering the properties they occupied, and filed a complaint alleging housing discrimination and IIED due to their receipt of disability payments. See ORS 659A.421 (Discrimination in housing, including access to the privileges of occupancy, is not allowed due to source of income.). The trial court granted summary judgment to HOA, finding that Residents had not presented any evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that HOA withheld the keys because of their disability income. Residents assigned error to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Plaintiffs alleging housing discrimination must either show “direct evidence of discriminatory intent” or indirect evidence such that a reasonable factfinder could infer discriminatory intent, like similarly situated individuals not in the protected class claimed by plaintiff treated differently. See Miller v. Racing Commission, 298 Or App 70, 90 (2019); Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 143 Or App 450, 457 (1996), aff’d, 329 Or 303 (1999). Residents alleged HOA knew of their disabilities, but did not allege HOA knew of their source of income, or create any record related to their source of income, making that claim unsupported. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.