Weinstein v. Cherry Oaks Retirement Community

917 P.2d 336 (1996)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Weinstein v. Cherry Oaks Retirement Community

Colorado Court of Appeals
917 P.2d 336 (1996)

Facts

Cherry Oaks Retirement Community (Cherry Oaks) (defendant) was a licensed personal-care boarding home for seniors struggling to live independently but not dependent on full-time care. A Denver regulation required that residents in such homes be able to move freely or transfer from a wheelchair or walker without assistance. When Miriam and Hyman Weinstein moved into Cherry Oaks, Hyman used a wheelchair but could transfer to a chair unassisted. He could therefore comply with Cherry Oaks’ policy requiring residents to transfer to ordinary chairs when eating in the communal dining room. However, within a few months, Hyman’s health deteriorated, and transferring to a chair became painful. Cherry Oaks briefly allowed Hyman to eat in his wheelchair. However, Cherry Oaks stopped that practice and instead provided staff to help Hyman make the mealtime transfers. Cherry Oaks explained that allowing Hyman to eat in his wheelchair looked bad, would encourage others to request similar treatment, and violated the fire code and state and local regulations. At no point did Cherry Oaks mention that an inability to independently transfer from the wheelchair was a basis for ineligibility to live in the facility. The Weinsteins ultimately took their meals in their apartment rather than going to the dining room. When their lease ended, the Weinsteins left Cherry Oaks. They filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (commission), alleging that Cherry Oaks’ policy and refusal to make an exception constituted a discriminatory and unfair housing practice based on Hyman’s disability. Upon Hyman’s death, his estate (plaintiff) joined the complaint. The commission issued a final decision in the Weinsteins’ favor. Cherry Oaks appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hume, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership