Retirement Community Accused of Penalizing Renters for Needing Motorized Wheelchairs

A Virginia retirement community has been hit with a fair housing complaint for allegedly violating the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on discrimination based on disability.

According to a press release issued Wednesday by Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, Inc. (HOME), the organization filing the complaint, The Towers Retirement Community in Richmond unfairly and illegally places substantial burdens on renters who need to use a motorized wheelchair in connection with a disability.

Specifically, HOME claims that the community requires renters to commit to an additional $1,500 security deposit as well as obtain liability insurance for motorized wheelchairs, essentially making such renters pay for having a disability. Also, renters who use motorized mobility devices are apparently barred from using the community's transportation services—even though they're reportedly required to pay a monthly transportation fee as part of their monthly rent. In addition, HOME alleges that the community requires renters wishing to use a motorized wheelchair to get their disability assessed by the community's staff.

You can access a copy of the HOME press release (issued February 5, 2014) here.

Landlords Gave Girl With Cerebral Palsy Two Options: Bad and Worse

For a divorced Iowa mother caring for a daughter with cerebral palsy, there were two options: 1) pay an additional $200 security deposit, plus $25 extra in rent each month, or 2) give up your apartment.

Why the options after the family had already been living in their apartment for months? The mother thought a Labrador retriever would provide needed assistance and stress reduction to the seven-year-old girl. Her pediatrician agreed and wrote a letter to the family's landlords to support their request for a reasonable accommodation to the landlords' no-pets rule.

However, the landlords refused to accommodate the girl's disability in this way, prompting the family to move out of the building to an apartment with a higher rent, located much farther away from the girl's school.

The mother complained to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which brought a fair housing complaint against the landlords and issued a Charge of Discrimination. A HUD administrative law judge is expected to hear the case.

Update: HUD Resumes Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST Services

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced yesterday that its Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST initiative, which has pursued a mission of promoting compliance with the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements since 2003, is back in business.

This past November, I wrote that all services associated with the initiative were suspended pending HUD's negotiation of a new contract. While the site's collection of useful resources remained functional, the initiative's programs and toll-free information line for technical guidance and support were indefinitely on hold.

If you visit the site now, you can get information about the new training schedule, which begins on August 22.

LANDMARK: Reasonable Accommodation Denial Leads to Record Settlement

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Monday that it has obtained the largest-ever settlement in connection with an individual housing discrimination case. The $1.25 million agreement with an Alabama property management company stems from a tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation, which the company allegedly denied.

What's interesting about this case is how a single denial of an accommodation request could wind up costing a management company so dearly. The reason? The tenant allegedly suffered severe damages as a direct result of the denial.

According to the first amended complaint filed March 17, 2009, the tenant requested to rent a ground-floor apartment in the 196-unit Mobile, Alabama non-elevator building to accommodate a physical disability. Although he needed to use full-length leg braces and crutches on account of paraplegia, he was offered an apartment on the second floor with the understanding that he would soon be transferred to a ground-floor unit. In the meantime, the apartment's small size meant the tenant had to keep his physical therapy equipment in storage on the ground floor.

Despite several follow-up requests and apparent promises, the company didn't allow the tenant to transfer to the ground floor, at one point citing a new rule barring all transfers, according to the complaint.

In November 2007, the tenant fell down the stairs from his second-floor apartment, requiring surgery and the need for a wheelchair.

Without admitting liability or wrongdoing, the company agreed Monday to pay $1,195,000 in monetary damages to the tenant, plus $55,000 in fees and costs to the federal government for the alleged Fair Housing Act violation based on disability.

In addition to the record monetary award and penalty, the consent decree requires the company to obtain fair housing training for employees and monitor their compliance, maintain non-discriminatory practices and procedures, and appoint an employee as "Reasonable Accommodation Facilitator," charged with managing all new requests at the more than 11,000 units in 85 properties across 15 states that the company manages.

Given the facts, do you think this settlement is fair? Do you believe landlords and property management companies need to become more aware of how the law protects people with disabilities?

What do you think?

Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST Services Suspended Pending Contract Negotiation

Since the beginning of last month, all services associated with Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST, an initiative sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), have been suspended pending HUD's negotiation of a new contract, according to a note on the initiative's Web site. Since 2003, the initiative has pursued a mission of promoting compliance with the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements.

The initiative's instructional programs and its toll-free information line for technical guidance and support are currently not operational. However, visitors to the Web site, fairhousingfirst.org, will be happy to note that the site's collection of useful links, informative documents, and other helpful information regarding accessibility remains online.

The site also notes that Deloitte Consulting has stopped being a point of contact as of October 1, due to contract expiration. Deloitte had assumed this role from BearingPoint in May 2009.

If you've used any of the Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST initiative's services, did you find them useful? Have you ever visited the initiative's Web site to get answers or clarification on housing accessibility and design issues?

Fair Housing Month: Third Announced HUD Charge Highlights Accessibility Battle

Many tenants who have physical disabilities need accommodations, modifications, or both to get full use and enjoyment of their housing. When tenants make accommodation or modification requests, landlords must take them seriously and grant them if they're reasonable. Landlords who deny tenants' reasonable requests may face charges for violating the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on disability-based discrimination.

That's what just happened to housing providers in Miami, Florida. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) third announced charge of Fair Housing Month, when a double-amputee veteran requested modifications to his apartment or a transfer to an accessible apartment, he allegedly was refused.

The tenant then contacted the county commissioner's office, which got the landlord to allow a transfer. However, the new apartment wasn't accessible either, and when the tenant moved back to his original apartment, he now found it was missing a stove.

The landlord, unhappy with the fact the tenant got the local government involved, allegedly threatened eviction, leading the tenant to pursue a fair housing complaint with HUD.

The landlord and management company will now need to defend themselves against the charge before a HUD administrative law judge.

Return tomorrow for the twenty-second part of this special "Fair Housing Month" feature at Fairhousingblog.com.

How Accommodating Is an Accessible, But Not a Designated, Parking Spot?

Many retail centers, office buildings, and even residential buildings offer accessible parking spots for visitors with disabilities. Of course, such spots are normally available on a first-come, first-served basis to visitors, which means there's no guaranty a visitor who needs an accessible spot will be able to find one.

What if you're not a visitor, but you own a home in a multifamily building with a parking lot? Is it reasonable for a housing provider to offer an accessible parking spot to such a person, but tell her it can't be reserved?

A condo owner with a mobility impairment in Puerto Rico says such an arrangement is both unreasonable and illegal. She's pursuing a fair housing claim against the condo's developer/manager, alleging that the company's denial of a designated accessible parking spot violates the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on disability-based discrimination.

The FHA requires housing providers to consider requests for reasonable accommodations from residents who need changes to rules, policies, or procedures on account of a disability. If a provider believes an accommodation would be unreasonable, it may propose an alternative. But the condo developer's idea to offer the accessible parking spot to the owner on a first-come, first-served basis doesn't cut it, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Charge of Discrimination, issued on February 19 and announced on February 24.

The owner's original assigned spots are some 238 feet away from her apartment. In addition to her having difficulty traveling that length on foot, the owner must cross oncoming traffic to reach her spots. In contrast, the accessible spot that the owner would like to have designated for her exclusive use is situated only 103 feet away — out of traffic and on an accessible route that offers support railings.

A HUD administrative law judge will hear the case. Among other things, the owner seeks a civil penalty plus damages for emotional distress, including embarrassment and humiliation, inconvenience, and economic loss caused by the developer's alleged discriminatory conduct.

If a resident requests an accessible parking spot as a reasonable accommodation for a disability, is it ever reasonable for the housing provider to offer such a spot on a first-come, first served basis?

What do you think?

LANDMARK: $7.4 Million Retrofitting Is Part of Largest Fair Housing Disability Settlement

Fair housing cases involving retrofitting come with great frustration. It's not just that the needed changes are often costly, but it's the notion that the expenses — not to mention the underlying inaccessibility problem — could have been avoided had the building's owner and architect been aware of (and taken seriously) all applicable accessibility laws.

Here's how retrofitting cases usually play out:

1. A building constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 that was supposed to have been built in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) design and construction requirements wasn't.


2. Tenants with mobility impairments who live in the building struggle to enjoy their apartment living, having difficulty with basic activities such as navigating through their apartments and accessing outlets and switches.


3. The tenants bring a fair housing complaint against the owners for violating the FHA's ban on disability-based discrimination.


4. The court finds in favor of the tenants and, in addition to assessing damages and other penalties, orders the owners to retrofit the building to get it in compliance.

On Wednesday, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and its member fair housing organizations announced a record settlement with California-based A.G. Spanos Companies ("Spanos"), the nation's fifth-largest housing developer.

Within three years, Spanos has agreed to retrofit 12,300 units in 82 buildings in 14 states — at an estimated cost of $7.4 million. The number of buildings would have been 123, but 41 Spanos-owned buildings have too many complications to undergo retrofitting. Instead, Spanos has agreed to commit $4.2 million over five years to a national accessibility fund, aimed at offering retrofitting grants for apartments across the United States.

On top of the retrofitting, Spanos has agreed to pay $1.325 million in attorneys' fees, $950,000 in compensatory damages, $750,000 for the establishment of local retrofit funds, $100,000 toward a national media campaign, and $40,000 for the creation of an accessibility coalition.

The settlement is considered a record for fair housing accessibility. Click here for a full summary of the settlement, courtesy of the NFHA.

Interesting to note:

• Spanos was reportedly "shocked" to learn that the buildings weren't built in compliance with the FHA's design and construction requirements. According to a report from the San Diego Union Tribune, the company claims to have hired and relied on competent architects and other professionals to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, but they apparently dropped the ball.


• Alex Spanos, who founded A.G. Spanos Construction in 1960, has owned the San Diego Chargers since 1984 and formed the Chargers Community Foundation in 1995.

Landlord May Take a Bath for Refusing to Allow Modification of One

After refusing to let a tenant modify her bathroom to make it more accessible, a Brooklyn, New York landlord has finally come clean. But the delay was costly, as the landlord now faces $80,000 in damages for the alleged harm he caused by taking nearly two years to grant the tenant's reasonable modification request under the Fair Housing Act.

The tenant, who suffered from emphysema, heart disease, sciatica, and rheumatoid arthritis, had requested a walk-in shower to replace the bathtub. She explained in numerous letters to the landlord that she needed the modification for her disability. As The New York Post reported, United Cerebral Palsy agreed to install the more accessible shower for free, and so the replacement would cost the landlord nothing.

As the landlord continued to ignore the tenant's requests, she reportedly often had to travel from her third-floor walk-up several blocks to bathe at her daughter's house. When finally reached for comment, the landlord pointed out that the tenant doesn't pay much for her rent-controlled apartment, and suggested she move to a nursing home.

An administrative law judge didn't buy it. On September 25, the judge ordered the landlord to pay a $50,000 penalty plus $30,000 to the tenant for her mental suffering, and to install the requested shower at the landlord's own expense.

When the tenant returned home from a hospital visit recently, she found the shower she had requested. Although this incident may one day become water under the bridge, this landlord isn't likely to forget that federal law requires landlords to consider requests that disabled tenants make for modifications to their apartments, and then grant them if they're reasonable.

Paying Dearly for Fair Housing Violations, Despite Good Intentions

You might think that a housing provider that markets itself to people with severe disabilities wouldn't likely be the defendant in a lawsuit alleging violation of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) ban on disability-based discrimination.

But not only has such a provider — New Horizons Village of Unionville, Connecticut — been the subject of a disability-discrimination complaint, it has now reached a settlement with the Connecticut Fair Housing Center (CFHC) and the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, agreeing to pay a whopping $600,000 in damages and attorneys' fees to a former tenant who claimed the provider's policies were discriminatory.

The tenant's issue was with New Horizons' policy of reviewing applicants' medical records to determine whether they can live independently, according to CFHC. The tenant argued that this policy amounts to illegal discrimination based on the type and severity of a disability. Earlier this year, a federal court agreed, holding that using applicants' medical records to decide which ones are "too disabled" to live independently is discriminatory. The court also noted that New Horizons further discriminated by sharing applicants' private medical information with other tenants.

In addition to the monetary part of the settlement, New Horizons has agreed to revise its tenancy requirements and no longer request applicants' private medical records. Going forward, New Horizons will reportedly determine the need for personal care assistance on a case-by-case basis, and requests for additional personal care assistance by applicants and tenants will be treated as requests for reasonable accommodations under the FHA.

Regarding New Horizons' seemingly good intentions, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, who issued the federal court's opinion, pointed out that "[a] discriminatory housing practice is still unlawful even if made with good intentions if it denies housing to individuals with disabilities based on their disabilities." Laflamme et al. v. New Horizons, Inc. et al., 605 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D. Conn. 2009) (emphasis added).

How much do you think good intentions should count in a fair housing defense? When it comes to alleged violations of the FHA's ban on disability-based discrimination, should a housing provider be treated more favorably if its mission is to help people with severe disabilities?

What do you think?

HUD Wraps Up 2008 With Reasonable Accommodations Charges

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ended 2008 issuing two Charges of Discrimination in cases involving a landlord denying a disabled tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation.

Here's a rundown on the charges, both of which were issued on December 29, 2008:

1) Transfer trouble. A tenant who had difficulty walking and climbing stairs settled for an apartment on the second floor of a Mississippi apartment building. The landlord, however, assured the tenant that she could transfer to a ground-floor apartment as a reasonable accommodiation once such an apartment became available. While living on the second floor, the tenant fell at least three times, according to the Charge, despite the help of a back brace and cane.

Finally, a ground-floor apartment became available, but the landlord rented the apartment to a displaced Katrina victim who wasn't disabled. The tenant, who has since moved out of the building, seeks compensation for her emotional distress and the financial costs associated with her landlord's refusal to grant her requested accommodation. The landlord also faces a possible civil penalty for each violation.

2) A dogged policy on dogs. A Minnesota landlord made it clear that "no dogs" were allowed in the apartment he advertised in the local newspaper. A woman who responded to the ad asked if her daughter can keep a dog, pointing out that it's a service animal that she needs as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The landlord insisted that "no dogs" means just that, and noted that he recently won a lawsuit over this issue. HUD's Charge notes that the lawsuit in question was dismissed against the landlord because the former tenant couldn't prove that the animal was medically necessary. By contrast, the woman offered the landlord a a note from her daughter's physician to support her reasonable accommodation request.

The landlord, however, refused to accept the note or entertain the woman's request. He now faces a possible $16,000 civil penalty plus damages to compensate the woman and her daughter for their emotional distress, economic loss, and loss of a unique housing opportunity.

Remembering Why Accessible Apartments Are Accessible

It sounds like a reasonable rule for an apartment complex that offers some accessible apartments: Let tenants without disabilities rent an accessible apartment, but have them agree to move if a tenant with a disability should need the apartment as an accommodation.

One lawsuit and an undisclosed financial settlement later, that's the rule that a federally assisted complex in Henrietta, New York has agreed to adopt, according to the Democrat and Chronicle. The lawsuit was brought by a former tenant who, as a paraplegic, was promised one of the complex's six accessible apartments but then told there's a three-year waiting list. The accessible apartments featured wider doors and other amenities aimed at helping people who use wheelchairs navigate the apartment and use kitchen counters. However, all six such apartments were reportedly occupied by tenants who didn't need them, while the one who did struggled in a nonaccessible apartment.

Making sure that accessible apartments get used by the very people for whom they were intended makes sense, don't you think?

Assisted Living Facility Needs Assistance with Motorized Wheelchair Policy

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a fair housing complaint against the owners and operators of a 58-unit Evansville, Indiana independent and assisted senior living facility, on behalf of two tenants who were evicted for their motorized wheelchair use. The complaint, filed November 7, 2008, alleges that the facility's policy of refusing to let tenants use motorized wheelchairs or scooters in their apartments or in the facility's dining room violates the Fair Housing Act's ban on disability discrimination.

In one alleged instance, when one of the evicted tenants arrived at the dining room on his motorized wheelchair, facility employees reminded him of the policy and then attempted to "forcibly remove" him from his wheelchair. The DOJ filing follows HUD's issuance of Charges of Discrimination against the facility on September 25.

Interesting to note:

You may be surprised to read that an assisted living facility is imposing this ban, since you might expect such a place to be particularly attuned to the needs of tenants with disabilities and more aware of disability discrimination laws. According to the complaint, the facility's own admission requirements state that applicants must be "ambulatory," which the administrator explained means "capable of moving from place to place... even if the person required some form of assistance in moving about, be it a cane, walker, or a[n] electric or nonelectric wheelchair or scooter." (Emphasis added.)

The Fair Housing Act? Fugheddaboutit!

Since January 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has notified several of the New York City's top landlords and their architects that some of their buildings aren't accessible to people with disabilities, in violation of the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) design and construction requirements, according to reporting on August 18, 2008 by The New York Times. The FHA's requirements generally apply to multifamily buildings that were designed and constructed "for first occupancy" after March 13, 1991. (See Section 3604(f)(3)(C) of the FHA and its relevant regulations, 24 CFR 100.205.) They require, for example, usable doors (by a person in a wheelchair), bathroom walls that are reinforced for the possible later installation of grab bars, and an accessible route into and through each apartment.

The landlords argue that they have been complying with the FHA through their successful compliance with Local Law 58, a city accessibilty law that took effect in 1988. They fear that lawsuits could require them to undergo a costly retrofitting of their buildings, which could involve some 100,000 apartments and a pricetag in the tens of millions of dollars.

The DOJ, however, claims that compliance with the FHA isn't the same as compliance with Local Law 58, which isn't listed as a safe harbor for FHA compliance.

What do you think?