sports, or recreation of any kind is offered with or without charge ... or where the public gathers, congregates, or assembles for amusement, recreation, or public purposes ... or any ... educational institution ... Wash. Rev.Code Ann. § 49.60.040(10) (West Supp.2001). Washington state courts have noted that state law relating to disability discrimination substantially parallels federal law, and courts may look to interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws, including the ADA, when applying the WLAD. MacSuga v. County of Spokane, 97 Wash.App. 435, 983 P.2d 1167, 1171 (1999) (commenting in dicta that the WLAD and ADA “have the same purpose” and state courts therefore may look to federal cases for guidance). See also Kees v. Wallenstein, 161 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The WLAD and Title III of the ADA differ in
recognizing the same analysis applies under the wlad and title vii holding that claims under the adea and the nyshrl are subject to the same analysis holding that courts should employ the same analysis to evaluate claims under the ada and the wlad holding the same holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act