Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-3562 Donald R. Kitten v. DWD

By: dmc-admin//May 28, 2002//

00-3562 Donald R. Kitten v. DWD

By: dmc-admin//May 28, 2002//

Listen to this article

“As articulated by the legislature, the purpose of the WOHA is: to render unlawful discrimination in housing. It is the declared policy of this state that all persons shall have an equal opportunity for housing regardless of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, lawful source of income, age or ancestry …. [The WOHA] shall be deemed an exercise of the police powers of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, peace, dignity and human rights of the people of this state. Wis. Stat. § 106.04(1). The multi-part definition of ‘disability’ satisfies this purpose in two ways. By protecting persons with actual disabilities or a record of disability from discrimination, the WOHA guarantees those persons equal access to housing. However, by supplying consequences for those who discriminate based on perceived disabilities as well as actual disabilities, the statute also helps combat incorrect assumptions about people with disabilities that are held by the public. In either situation, there is harm to the person who is discriminated against. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, ‘[S]ociety’s accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment.’ Sch. Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 284 (1987). By providing a penalty for those who discriminate based on perceived disabilities, the legislature has chosen to respond to such myths and fears in pursuit of the goal of open housing.

“Because the hearing examiner’s conclusions were reasonable and kept with the intent of the statute, we hold that the hearing examiner correctly concluded that a perceived disability can qualify as a disability under the WOHA, even when no actual disability has been proven.”

Affirmed.

Wilcox, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Phil Elliott, Jr., West Allis,

For Respondent: David C. Rice, James E. Doyle, Madison

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests