2021 Colorado Code
Title 24 - Government - State
Article 34 - Department of Regulatory Agencies
Part 5 - Housing Practices
§ 24-34-502.2. Unfair or Discriminatory Housing Practices Against Individuals With Disabilities Prohibited

1. It is an unfair or discriminatory housing practice and therefore unlawful and prohibited:
   1. For a person to discriminate in the sale or rental of, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a disability of a buyer or renter, an individual who will reside in the dwelling after it is sold, rented, or made available, or of any individual associated with the buyer or renter;
   2. For a person to discriminate against an individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling because of a disability of that individual, of any individual residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available, or of any individual associated with the individual.

2. For purposes of this section, "discrimination" includes both segregate and separate and includes, but is not limited to:
   1. A refusal to permit, at the expense of an individual with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the individual if the modifications are necessary to afford the individual with full enjoyment of the premises; except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted;
   2. A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford the individual with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and
   3. In connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after the date that is thirty months after the date of enactment of the federal "Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988", a failure to design and construct those dwellings in such a manner that the public use and common use portions of the dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. At least one building entrance must be on an accessible route unless it is impractical to do so because of the terrain or the unusual characteristics of the site. All doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within the dwellings must be sufficiently wide to allow passage by individuals with disabilities using mobility devices, and all premises within the dwellings must contain the following features of adaptive design:
      1. Accessible routes into and through the dwellings;
      2. Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations;
      3. Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and
      4. Usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual using a mobility device can maneuver about the space.

3. Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities" standard, or any successor standard, promulgated and amended from time to time by the international code council (commonly cited as ICC/ANSI A117.1) suffices to satisfy the requirements of subsection (2)(c) of this section.
4. As used in this section, "covered multifamily dwellings" means:
   1. Buildings consisting of four or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators; and
   2. Ground floor units in other buildings consisting of four or more units.

Source: L. 90: Entire section added, p. 1228, § 8, effective April 16. L. 92: IP(2)(c) amended, p. 1124, § 5, effective July 1. L. 93: (1), (2)(a), IP(2)(c), and (3) amended, p. 1660, § 64, effective July 1. L. 2014: (1), (2), and (3) amended, (SB 14-118), ch. 250, p. 977, § 5, effective August 6. L. 2017: (3) amended, (HB 17-1067), ch. 19, p. 63, § 4, effective August 9.

"Reasonable accommodation" as that term is used in subsection (2)(b) may be defined as changing a rule that may be otherwise generally applicable so as to make its burden less onerous on a disabled individual. Weinstein v. Cherry Oaks Retirement Cmty., 917 P.2d 336 (Colo. App. 1996).

Commission did not err in determining personal care boarding home was in violation of the Colorado Fair Housing Act by requiring, without a legitimate reason for such policy, its residents who used walkers or wheelchairs to transfer to ordinary chairs in the dining room. Weinstein v. Cherry Oaks Retirement Cmty., 917 P.2d 336 (Colo. App. 1996).

Because the Colorado Fair Housing Act ("CFHA") is almost identical to the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHAA"), federal case authority is persuasive in interpreting the provisions of the CFHA. Boulder Meadows v. Saville, 2 P.3d 131 (Colo. App. 2000).

To prevail on her claim under the CFHA, tenant assumed the burden of proving discrimination against her in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling because of a disability. A plaintiff may establish discrimination by demonstrating that the challenged regulation discriminates against disabled persons on its face and serves no legitimate government interest. Alternatively, a complainant must show either discriminatory intent or discriminatory impact. Discriminatory intent is proved by showing that disabilities like those of the plaintiff were, in some part, the basis for the policy being challenged. Discriminatory impact is shown by proof that a given policy or practice has a greater impact upon disabled than non-disabled persons. Boulder Meadows v. Saville, 2 P.3d 131 (Colo. App. 2000).

Colorado and federal fair housing acts create a statutory right to a reasonable accommodation upon proof of a disability and an appropriate request. Whether an accommodation is reasonable is a question of fact, determined by a close examination of the particular circumstances. In evaluating the reasonableness of an accommodation, a trial court may consider the extent to which the accommodation would undermine the legitimate purposes and effects of existing regulations and the benefits the accommodation would provide to the disabled person. The court may also consider whether alternatives exist to accomplish the benefits more efficiently. Boulder Meadows v. Saville, 2 P.3d 131 (Colo. App. 2000).

Record sustains findings of trial court that alternatives offered by mobile home park owner were not reasonable. While paying a maintenance fee of $25 per month in return for which tenant would maintain her yard may be quite reasonable under some circumstances, such a fee cannot be held reasonable as a matter of law. FHAA standards regarding reasonable accommodation may require landlords to assume reasonable financial burdens in accommodating disabled residents. Because trial court's findings of fact have record support and are not clearly erroneous, they will not be disturbed on review. Boulder Meadows v. Saville, 2 P.3d 131 (Colo. App. 2000).