MARCUS L. KAWATACHI, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission, ex relatione, ROBERT A. FAHN and BRENDA A. FAHN, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PARRISH COLLECTION, LLC, THE PARRISH COLLECTION KAUAI, JONATHAN D. PARRISH, and SIMONE McCAFFREY, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees, and LINDA EVANS, as Trustee of the LAURA P. EVANS REVOCABLE TRUST Dated May 8, 2002, Defendant-Appellee.

Listen to the audio

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorneys for Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees THE PARRISH COLLECTION, LLC, THE PARRISH COLLECTION KAUAI, JONATHAN D. PARRISH, and SIMONE McCAFFREY:
     Mark G. Valencia and Alana S.D. Johnson of Case Lombardi

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant MARCUS L. KAWATACHI, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission, ex relatione, ROBERT A. FAHN and BRENDA A. FAHN:
     Eric Piliaau, Joey Badua and Catherine M. Lowenberg of The Department of Labor & Industrial Relations

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Michelle L. Drewyer due to a vacancy, filed 03/17/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/06/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ. and Circuit Judge Drewyer assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This appeal arises from a tenant’s request for reasonable accommodations under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 515-3(a)(9) of the Hawaiʻi Discrimination in Real Property Transactions Act.  Marcus L. Kawatachi, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (HCRC), ex relatione Robert A. Fahn (Robert) and Brenda A. Fahn (collectively, Fahns), filed this suit in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (circuit court) against The Parrish Collection, LLC, The Parrish Collection Kauai, Jonathan D. Parrish, and Simon McCaffrey (collectively, Parrish) over allegations that Parrish unlawfully discriminated against the Fahns on the basis of Robert’s disability (heart disease).

In August 2020, the Fahns and Parrish executed a rental agreement for a long-term lease at a high-end property.  The rental agreement contained a clause requiring the Fahns to pay for weekly scheduled cleanings.  The Fahns requested an accommodation for Parrish to waive the clause because of Robert’s disability.  They indicated Robert was at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to his heart disease and wanted to limit the number of non-immediate household members entering the property.  Parrish denied the requested accommodation stating that the Fahns allowed repair workers but not cleaners to enter the property.  Parrish terminated the Fahns’ tenancy after they repeatedly failed to comply with the weekly cleanings clause.

The Fahns then filed a complaint with the HCRC.  Following an investigation, the HCRC found reasonable cause to believe that unlawful discriminatory practices had taken place.  After attempts at conciliation failed, the parties received notices of the right to sue, which the Fahns exercised.

In its first amended complaint, the HCRC alleged that Parrish unlawfully discriminated against Robert on the basis of disability by failing to engage in an interactive process and by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.  Parrish filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.  It contended that no legal liability exists for failing to engage in an interactive process in this context, and that it did not unlawfully refuse to accommodate Robert’s alleged disability because the requested accommodation was neither necessary nor reasonable.

The circuit court granted Parrish’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, concluding that the HCRC failed to adequately allege Robert’s disability or that the requested accommodation was either reasonable or necessary.  It also determined that HRS § 515-3(a)(9) does not create independent liability for failure to engage in an interactive process and, even if it did, the parties here had undertaken efforts to resolve the matter.  The HCRC appealed.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the circuit court’s order and final judgment.  Citing Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b), the ICA treated Parrish’s motion as a motion for summary judgment because the circuit court relied on the parties’ declarations and exhibits.  The ICA determined that Parrish failed to produce enough evidence negating the “disability,” “necessary,” and “reasonable” factors.  However, it did not address whether there is standalone liability under HRS § 515-3(a)(9) for a landlord’s failure to engage in an interactive process. 

On certiorari, Parrish challenges the ICA’s holding that it failed to produce evidence negating the “necessary” and “reasonable” factors and urges this court to reach the question left unresolved by the ICA, namely whether independent liability exists under HRS § 515-3(a)(9) for failure to engage in an interactive process.