but has it here to a policy that a private landlord occupancy restriction policy restriction does not violate the fair housing act if the restriction is reasonable heard in two thousand and thirteen from a good regulation recognizing that fair housing discrimination proscribes disparate impact discrimination but that statement does not alter in any way the general policy that restrictions must be reasonable in the case before said today before you today fair housing center and several i'm a guy who submitted briefs and support have consistently advised and continue to advise prospective renters and private land on private land owners that heard allows reasonable occupancy restrictions despite providing that advice apparently and i'm a guy contend that the court should disregard reasonable ness standard further appellee enemy guy contend that if liability attaches to the occupancy policy at issue mr sheets his conduct supports an award of punitive damages yet abundant evidence in the record demonstrates that mr sheets did not perceive a risk that the occupancy policy at issue violates the fair housing act to borrow from a pelleas counsel mr sheets believes that  knows the applicable law and b he does not discriminate consequently mr sheets neither intentionally violated the law nor willfully acted in disregard of whether he did so here mr sheets maintain a policy of one person per studio apartments for the four hundred square foot apartments that policy was based in part on the age of the building which is nearly one hundred years old has observed turnover rates when two or more people occupy the four hundred square foot studios and three wear and tear on the apartment went to or more people occupy the four hundred square foot apartment endorsed the landlord's desire to protect the investment value of their property the defendant must believe in an objective standard we instead believe that if mr sheets had a distinct belief that what he was doing was proper that punitive damages do not apply no case that we were able to find and which defendant was held liable and a disparate impact case for punitive damages under the fair housing act where there was no evidence of intentional discrimination here not only was there no evidence but the city of seattle human rights department found no intentional discrimination let me let me just make sure i understand your position i read your briefs and everything but your position essentially is that believe it was called the keating  yes somehow or other is the guiding rule in this situation yes and that the regulation that was promulgated back in tw twenty four c a far section one hundred point five hundred five hundred really has no effect here so what your things state again has no effect doesn't have any doesn't apply here that that what your position is no what we're saying is that the regulation does not change the requirement that the fair housing act this policy that mr sheets had adopted before the lawsuit was filed had he ever been notified that it was improper or contrary to the policies of the city of seattle or the state of washington or if your house you know before the lawsuit was filed yeah the seattle apartment of human rights gave me such  anybody else not that i recall but after the lawsuit was filed he was really on notice that's correct did he take any steps to change the policy know he believed other than filing the appeal he believes that his policy was reasonable still believes that his policy was reasonable and is that policy still in effect today in part in part some of the units yes four hundred square foot units there actually there's been no change i see ok you see if my colleagues have any questions at this time i don't ok we'll hear from the other side and then give you some time for good morning ma'am please the court jessie wing and jeffrey terrine on behalf of the fair housing center of washington we are the appellee i'd like to talk about three points first that the trial court's verdict in fair enough your honor jury verdict bench for judgment ok that the defendants failed to meet the business necessity test as required by supreme court precedent in inclusive communities and the hud regulation that the court has just been discussing twenty four c a far one hundred point five hundred and that the judge's ruling was supported by substantial evidence so it should be affirmed the challenge here my understanding of the brief was that that was not contested by mr sheets in other words he says i didn't meet the business of the test but we really should stick with a reasonable test i agree with you completely around or which is a significant amount of relief is it necessary there really is very little law under washington in the washington court about the seattle ordinance and about the washington law against discrimination and adverse impact in this context is it necessary to even address those statutes in order to affirm the relief that was granted here it's not necessary the fair housing act provides all the same relief and having said that i think that in particular the brief from the washing state attorney general's office provides very strong citations to the case law that the business and ceci test is the test in washington and so there is every reason to affirm on those grounds under washington  law and the seattle ordinance it is of course a benefit to the citizens of the state of washington in the city of seattle to have the development of their cases of the ordinance in the state law for use and so that's a i would move to i guess i would simply also point out that the defendants really didn't challenge the ability of washington law on the seattle ordinance and so since it's unrebutted to be a provisions you would look so that my point was that there's very little washington law that's interpreted the seattle ordinance and washington law against discrimination in this kind of context in the housing context right and what your argument the argument is well we generally look to what the federal law is let me alter that just a little bit your honor unlike federally anti discrimination law which very often has a specific statute in a specific context you've got title seven for certain kinds of employment discrimination you have the fair housing act  for housing you've got the americans with disabilities act which might include public accommodations in a certain context the washington law against this criminal nation contains all of those within the same law and very often the application  the housing context will rely on the case law on the interpretation of the same law in the employment context of the public accommodations context so the fact that there's not very much housing or shouldn't to turn this court from recognizing that the washington supreme court's rulings defendants argue only the sufficiency of evidence simply say i in my bones believe that i was not violating the law and that's enough the there's nothing the plaintiffs can do about that i say yes my understanding is there there reason they maintained it was that they could shows the single occupancy rule was reasonable yes and so that became the key to really the the trial and after getting past the first point but damages whether or not it was reasonable and and the district court went on to find that they did not hear it their burden but to tell me what what is why this would result in punitive damages if you don't think  ok that was filed second there was an investigation as he had office of civil rights issued findings for cause to believe that discrimination had occurred and that there was disparate impact even you you could you agree that there's no evidence of intentional discrimination here well i mean he didn't say i don't want families that didn't put that up in just that i want one person he had some reasonable grounds for saying one person as i understood it he said the policy is simple to administer single people stay in apartments longer as of this reduces turnover there is less wear and tear on the apartment with just one occupant parking is limited in the apartment complex and you may have to have a new utility system all of those things have nothing to do with family occupancy they don't on their face they are or however where is that where the militias and evil intent which is necessary to punish people civilization under punitive damages your honor under smith versus way the supreme court said that malicious and evil intent is not required only a reckless or callous disregard is required is is is opposing the ministry of order reckless in the us because that then we wouldn't have many cases because nobody would  oppose that's fair but here judge zilly found this wasn't a matter of your evidence doesn't quite reach the standard he found the explanations arbitrary and completely unsupported if you read his opinion it says no evidence no evidence no evidence no credible evidence no explanation repeatedly the message here to mr sheets is you showed up with a nothing to the bench trial so why wouldn't apartment owner think well i still have a chance he had reasons well no because he had such bankrupt explanations for why he had this policy saying the policy is simple to people is just as simple as one person you could look at say had pretty good explanations but no proof well i would counter actually that he had nothing other than his say so for example his free rider explanation f utility meters simply didn't add up he has current three riders he didn't either think it through or didn't believe it and he had many many months to do that he can i will tell you what i think is the coup de gras here which is he says when asked aren't you concerned that you are preventing one hundred percent of the families from living in your apartments and he says why should i care that is the very definition of deliberate disregard and as you've seen from the testimony scuse me the argument today despite judge sillies injunction this occupancy restriction is still in place this isn't a question of a man who's decided he's got an argument to make and he wants to bring it to the end i guess the response to that was we have an injunction now we might have punitive damages but before the trial he thought that he had a defense he's entitled to a defense and he was joined from doing anything and that's what punitive damages were based on the conduct prior to trial now after trial you have another story that's fair i think that judge  who was the district judge and who was able to look at mr sheets testifying his demeanor ok his wording his tone concluded and stated as such in his opinion that this defendant didn't want to change was unwilling to change was unwilling to abide by the law so he entered an injunction and so he entered an injunction but he also thought it was necessary to punish that behavior and deter the behavior of other landlords in this affordability crisis area here in washington in seattle he said that i've got to step in here and send a very very strong message to this defendant you can't simply ignore all the warnings you're showing a reckless disregard you don't care your explanation is i do this because i wish to that's not a reasonable us even reasonableness argument you would also be sending all the message to the people who really believe they have a reason he told the seattle office of civil rights one thing he told the court something else you even heard a new explanation today the hundred year old building that's nowhere in the record judge silly was plainly finding that this man was not believable that he lacked credibility in his explanations for why he had this policy he just had this policy because he wanted it and come hell or high water he was going to keep his policy that calls out for punitive damages i might also point out that somebody who believed that they had a right to continue pursuing their policy would stop doing it because they've been told it's a violation of the law and they could proceed with their appeal but this dependent blew past judge sillies ruling that this violated the law blew past now the injunction all of these facts judge zilly observed when he saw the defendant testify and he concluded that there was a deliberate disregard and the punitive damages which were small in the scope of the wealth of this defendant were needed in order to put a stop to this behavior and it turns out even that was not sufficient the at the trial the judge also saw that this defendant denied that he knew that family status discrimination was illegal and when playing presented him with his deposition he had to say oh no sorry i guess it's true i did know that this was illegal the judge witnessed non credible explanations and indeed by the end of the trial the judge acknowledged which actually stated that at some point he believed this became intentional so it may not have been that mr sheets and originally came up with this occupancy restriction because he believed that because he didn't like families with children but at some point his unwillingness to stop his policy became intentional and that cries out for punitive damages in this case i recall also this is a professional landlord ok somebody who's said that he's been apprised of the law over the years and in the face of what he's observing and knowing that one hundred percent of families cannot get into his building his explanations are too weak and the court found it it was obvious that punitive damages were necessary ok thank you kim thank you for your time your a that they building as a nineteen twenty two building and that within a day an affidavit submitted at the trial level further mr sheets did not believe that he was discriminating the four hundred square foot apartments are probably two thirds of that building the remaining apartments are bigger he believed that his ability to preserve the value of his property was fish and to maintain his position