The final outcome is still undecided as challenges face Seattle’s new landmark tenant screening law. Seattle’s recent tenant screening law, one that tightly regulates to whom a landlord and/or property manager can rent, has faced legal challenges and Washington’s State Supreme Court upheld key provisions of the law. Any legal or legislative activity that affects tenant screening should put landlords and/or property managers on notice to make sure their policies and procedures are legal and compliant; and a best practice remains to work with a highly qualified tenant screening agency.
Seattle’s tenant screening law, commonly referred to as “First-in-Line” has survived initial legal challenges. Seattle’s law could face numerous legal challenges which, subsequently, highlights the need for landlords and/or property managers to work with a well-qualified tenant screening agency.
Several years after the initial passage of Seattle’s “First-in-Time” law legal challenges continue to slow full implementation.
From Seattle.Curbed.com (Nov. 21, 19):
Three years after its initial passage, Seattle’s “first-in-time” law, which requires a landlord to accept the first qualified applicant to live in a rental property, has been upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court. The law had been overturned in late March by a lower court and was subsequently appealed by the city. seattle.curbed.com/2019/11/21/20967118/seattle-tenant-protections-first-in-time
The law was intended to eliminate bias in tenant screening and related housing.
From Seattle.Curbed.com (Nov. 21, 19):
The laws were the First in Time law, requiring landlords to rent a property to the first qualified applicant, and the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, prohibiting landlords from looking into the criminal backgrounds of potential tenants. ibid
Landlords and property managers have begun to push back against this law, hence the recent court challenges, and are pushing hard to reverse the law entirely.
From MHPMag.com (Nov. 19, 19):
The property owners objected to these laws based on protections in the United States and Washington State constitutions against government takings of private property and for due process and free speech. Lower courts had found these arguments persuasive based on precedents established by earlier cases. A laymen’s reading of the decisions by the Washington State Supreme Court is that the justices decided that the lower courts erred by concluding that the Washington State Supreme Court had established protections that were broader than those found in the Federal Constitution. Also, the justices determined that recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court had effectively invalidated some of the precedents the lower courts had used as justification for their decisions. Therefore, they reversed the lower courts’ rulings. mhpmag.com/2019/11/setback-in-seattle/
Because of the humungous impact a law like this has on how the tenant selection process must work, landlords need to be cognizant of how they screen potential tenants in a way that does not break the law. This is why it is still a best practice for landlords and/or property managers to work with well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency, one that can assist in maintaining compliance with the law. This is especially true when new laws are introduced and challenged in court. Laws can change quickly and it’s best to be prepared and wise to pay attention to such court rulings.
To learn more about Seattle’s First in Time law and the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance and how these laws affect tenant screening policies and the overall tenant selection process along with how to stay compliant with such new laws read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Seattles Landmark Tenant Screening Law Faces Challenges