A. A person may not discriminate in the sale or rental or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a disability of:
1. That buyer or renter.
2. A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, rented or made available.
3. A person associated with that buyer or renter.
B. A person may not discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the dwelling because of a disability of:
1. That person.
2. A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented or made available.
3. A person associated with that person.
C. Nothing in this section requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others.
D. Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the fair housing accessibility guidelines established by the United States department of housing and urban development satisfies the requirements of subsection E, paragraph 3, subdivision (c).
E. For the purposes of this section, "discrimination" includes:
1. A refusal to permit, at the expense of the person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person if the modifications may be necessary to afford the person full enjoyment of the premises, provided that, in the case of a renter, the landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing, to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
2. A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services if the accommodations may be necessary to afford the person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
3. In connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after the date that is thirty months after the date of enactment of the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (P.L. 100-430), a failure to design and construct those dwellings in a manner that includes all of the following:
(a) The public use and common use portions of the dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by persons with a disability.
(b) All the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within the dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons with a disability in wheelchairs.
(c) All premises within the dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design:
(i) An accessible route into and through the dwelling.
(ii) Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls in accessible locations.
(iii) Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars.
(iv) Usable kitchens and bathrooms so that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.
F. As used in this section, "covered multifamily dwellings" means buildings consisting of four or more units if the buildings have one or more elevators and ground floor units in other buildings consisting of four or more units.
Notes of Decisions
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n, 167 P.3d 1277 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 11× “¶20 Subsection D of section 41-1491.19 further provides that “[c]omplianee with the appropriate requirements of the fair housing accessibility guidelines established by the United States department of housing and urban development satisfies the requirements of subsection…”
Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Ass'n, 60 P.3d 231 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “”) § 41-1491.19 (1999). The State then brought this action against the Association, alleging that it had engaged in unlawful housing discrimination against a disabled person by failing to make a reasonable accommodation to allow Scott to live in an Estates home with his parents.”
City of Tempe v. State, 351 P.3d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “and obtain substantial equivalency with the federal government’s housing discrimination enforcement efforts.” 1991 Ariz. Sess.”
Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Cmty. Ass'n Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “, and the 28 Arizona Fair Housing Act (“Arizona FHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 1 alleges that he is a disabled veteran who suffers from a disability.”
Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Cmty. Ass'n Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “, and the 25 Arizona Fair Housing Act (“AZFHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges 26 1 Plaintiff argues that Defendant offered “a 123-paragraph sham affidavit [from its 27 30(b)(6) witness] that conflicts with not one, but two, prior depositions, and rehashed…”
Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Cmty. Ass'n Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “, 23 and the Arizona Fair Housing Act (“AZFHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 24 alleges that he is a disabled veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder 25 (“PTSD”), constant anxiety, and panic attacks.”
Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Cmty. Ass'n Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “, 26 and the Arizona Fair Housing Act (“AZFHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 27 alleges that he is a disabled veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder 28 (“PTSD”), constant anxiety, and panic attacks.”
tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “and obtain substantial equivalency with the federal government’s housing discrimination enforcement efforts.”
Sw. Fair Hous. Council v. Wg Scottsdale LLC (9th Cir. 2023).
“§§ 3604 (f)(3)(B), 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19 (E)(2). “To prove that an accommodation is necessary, plaintiffs must show that, but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19(A) — 1 case
Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Ass'n, 60 P.3d 231 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) § 41-1491.19 (1999). The State then brought this action against the Association, alleging that it had engaged in unlawful housing discrimination against a disabled person by failing to make a reasonable accommodation to allow Scott to live in an Estates home with his parents.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19(A)(1) — 1 case
City of Tempe v. State, 351 P.3d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“and obtain substantial equivalency with the federal government’s housing discrimination enforcement efforts.” 1991 Ariz. Sess.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19(B) — 5 cases
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n, 167 P.3d 1277 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶20 Subsection D of section 41-1491.19 further provides that “[c]omplianee with the appropriate requirements of the fair housing accessibility guidelines established by the United States department of housing and urban development satisfies the requirements of subsection…”
Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Cmty. Ass'n Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
“, and the 28 Arizona Fair Housing Act (“Arizona FHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 1 alleges that he is a disabled veteran who suffers from a disability.”
Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Cmty. Ass'n Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
“, and the 25 Arizona Fair Housing Act (“AZFHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges 26 1 Plaintiff argues that Defendant offered “a 123-paragraph sham affidavit [from its 27 30(b)(6) witness] that conflicts with not one, but two, prior depositions, and rehashed…”
Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Cmty. Ass'n Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
“, 23 and the Arizona Fair Housing Act (“AZFHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 24 alleges that he is a disabled veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder 25 (“PTSD”), constant anxiety, and panic attacks.”
Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Cmty. Ass'n Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024).
“, 26 and the Arizona Fair Housing Act (“AZFHA”), A.R.S. § 41-1491.19(B). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff 27 alleges that he is a disabled veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder 28 (“PTSD”), constant anxiety, and panic attacks.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19(D) — 1 case
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n, 167 P.3d 1277 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶20 Subsection D of section 41-1491.19 further provides that “[c]omplianee with the appropriate requirements of the fair housing accessibility guidelines established by the United States department of housing and urban development satisfies the requirements of subsection…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19(D)(2) — 1 case
Canady v. Prescott Canyon Estates Homeowners Ass'n, 60 P.3d 231 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) § 41-1491.19 (1999). The State then brought this action against the Association, alleging that it had engaged in unlawful housing discrimination against a disabled person by failing to make a reasonable accommodation to allow Scott to live in an Estates home with his parents.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19(E)(1) — 1 case
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n, 167 P.3d 1277 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶20 Subsection D of section 41-1491.19 further provides that “[c]omplianee with the appropriate requirements of the fair housing accessibility guidelines established by the United States department of housing and urban development satisfies the requirements of subsection…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19(E)(2) — 1 case
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n, 167 P.3d 1277 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶20 Subsection D of section 41-1491.19 further provides that “[c]omplianee with the appropriate requirements of the fair housing accessibility guidelines established by the United States department of housing and urban development satisfies the requirements of subsection…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1491.19(E)(3) — 1 case
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n, 167 P.3d 1277 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶20 Subsection D of section 41-1491.19 further provides that “[c]omplianee with the appropriate requirements of the fair housing accessibility guidelines established by the United States department of housing and urban development satisfies the requirements of subsection…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.