Baxter Homeowners Ass'n v. Angel
2013 MT 83
Mont.2013Background
- Angel, a Bozeman attorney, rented office space in the Baxter Hotel with access to a shared elevator; BHA restricts elevator access to unit owners/tenants, keeping it public during business hours via swipe card system; Angel complained that locking the elevator harmed his disabled clients and his law practice; the Montana Human Rights Bureau investigated and eventually allowed modifications to the elevator; Angel moved his office in mid-2008 due to rent and accessibility concerns; the administrative proceedings found discrimination and damages, which the District Court later reversed, and both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to file discrimination claims | Angel had a personal interest via disability association and injury to his practice | Angel lacked aggrieved-party standing under §49-2-101(2) | Angel lacked standing; not a proper aggrieved party under the statute. |
| Standards for determining discrimination in public accommodations | BHA failed to provide reasonable modification for disabled access | The modification and timing were adequate and did not alter the nature of the public accommodation | Court affirmed that the district court correctly reversed, holding no actionable discrimination under posed standards. |
| Appropriate legal standard (reasonable accommodation vs reasonable modification) | The Commission properly applied the reasonable modification standard for public accommodations | The Hearing Officer used the correct standard, and the Commission erred in switching standards | Court held the Montana act uses reasonable modification standard; affirmed applicability. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Department of Labor and Industry exhaustively argued issues; standing raised earlier | BHA did not properly raise standing through cross-appeal | Exhaustion not properly raised; issue not decisive to outcome. |
| Attorneys’ fees attribution | Angel, representing himself, should be entitled to fees as prevailing party | Fees discretionary; no prevailing-party entitlement shown; no abuse of discretion | District Court did not err in denying fees to both parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) (third-party standing limits; injury required; close relation needed for exceptions)
- Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004) (no standing for third parties without close relationship; attorneys lack standing for unknown clients)
- Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health, Inc., 313 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2002) (associational discrimination requires close relationship or individual standing)
- Equal Rights Ctr. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 767 F. Supp. 2d 510 (D. Md. 2010) (organizational/associational standing analysis for discrimination claims)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544 (1996) (associational standing; member with standing can sustain suit)
- Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 2012 MT 111 (Mont. 2012) (standing as a threshold, independent of preservation; state standing rules applied)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 2012 MT 147 (Mont. 2012) (use of federal precedent in interpreting discrimination statutes)
- Williamson v. Montana Public Service Commission, 2012 MT 32 (Mont. 2012) (administrative standing depends on statute/regulations)