00-3562 Kitten v. State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

Listen to this article

“Although Kitten claims that the credit check on Cenname showed an inadequate credit history, Kitten never raised this as an issue with Cenname. The only reason Kitten provided Cenname for needing an additional six months’ advance rent was Kitten’s fear that Cenname would have a relapse of his eating disorder and would require hospitalization. Kitten’s fears and concerns about Cenname’s eating disorder were also shown by his desire to speak to Cenname’s doctor. Kitten also demonstrated his concerns about Cenname’s eating disorder in his questioning of Cenname and his mother as to whether Cenname might attempt to commit suicide while residing in the apartment.

“While Kitten now attempts to characterize his actions as being concerned about Cenname’s financial ability to pay, Kitten’s actions do not support this characterization. Additionally, the hearing examiner noted that Kitten was extremely evasive and unwilling to provide direct answers to questions during his examination by Cenname’s attorney. The record, including the hearing examiner’s observations of credibility, leads us to determine that Kitten’s reason for attempting to speak to Cenname’s doctor and for requiring Cenname to pay an additional six months’ advance rent was due to Cenname’s eating disorder. …

“Given Kitten’s belief that Cenname’s eating disorder would prevent him from being able to live on his own and take care of himself without further hospitalization or attempts on his life, we agree with the hearing examiner’s determination that Kitten regarded Cenname as having a disability within the meaning of WOHA. Thus, substantial evidence supports the hearing examiner’s finding that Kitten exacted different rental terms from Cenname because of a ‘disability’ within the meaning of the WOHA and not because of financial considerations.”

Accordingly, we affirm the hearing examiner’s decision that plaintiff unlawfully discriminated against a prospective tenant contrary to the Wisconsin Open Housing Act.

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Waukesha County, Hassin, J., Anderson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Phil Elliott Jr., Milwaukee

For Respondent: David C. Rice, Madison