Appendix C Case Digest

• Library: Group Homes: Strategies for Effective and Defensible Planning and Regulation (ABA) (2014 Ed.)

This is a digest of significant Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and similar cases decided since the passage of the FHAA in 1988. This list is not exhaustive, but does provide lawyers and planners with a broad overview of cases interpreting the FHAA. The end of this appendix provides an index of the cases, sorted by subject.

Ass'n of Relatives & Friends of AIDS Patients v. Regulations & Permits Admin., 740 F. Supp. 95 (D.P.R. 1990). Hospice center for AIDS patients challenged denial of special use permit. Held that AIDS patients do not constitute direct threat; held that government's reliance on discriminatory attitudes and failure to provide rationale for denial constituted discriminatory treatment; held that permit denials resulted in lack of housing for people with disabilities and had disparate impact.

Avalon Residential Care Homes, Inc. v. City of Dallas, No. 3:11-CV-1239-D, 2011 WL 33152058 (Sept. 19, 2011) (N.D. Tex. 2011). Assisted living home provider brought suit against city after city threatened action for an injunction against group on basis that ordinance limiting to eight the number of unrelated people with disabilities who may reside together applied to group homes. Held that housing provider had standing on grounds that provider suffered economic loss and had likelihood of injury; held that claim was ripe because city denied request for reasonable accommodation and housing discrimination causes "uniquely immediate injury"; granted defendant's motion to dismiss on plaintiff's claim of facial discrimination; denied defendant's motion to dismiss on plaintiff's reasonable accommodation claim; denied defendant's motion to dismiss on plaintiff's retaliation claim.

Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3d 1491 (10th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff challenged city's conditional approval of a group home in a residential area requiring 24-hour care and establishment of community advisory committee. Held that claims were properly intentional discrimination claims, and that court must weigh government's interest in public safety and protection of people with disabilities against burden imposed upon people with disabilities, and noting unlikelihood that conditions were tailored to the needs of the particular group home in question.

Baxter v. City of Belleville, 720 F. Supp. 720 (S.D. Ill. 1989). Property owner challenged denial of special use permit to establish residence for AIDS victims. Held that people who are HIV-positive have a handicap for the purposes of FHAA analysis; held plaintiff had standing to sue despite not being HIV-positive, because he had expended funds to prepare a home for those who are disabled; held that residents would not be occupying the city as mere transients, and thus the facility would constitute a dwelling for the purposes of the FHAA; held that scientific and medical risks of HIV spreading did not constitute a direct threat under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9); held that denial was based on fears and stereotypes of HIV victims; held that denial of special use permit had disparate impact on people with disabilities.

Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999). Operator of methadone clinic challenged local government moratorium on issuance of approval to methadone clinics operating within 500 feet of a residential area. Held that trial court's denial of injunction in favor of plaintiff was an abuse of discretion, and that the moratorium was discriminatory on its face under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); held further that the clinic must demonstrate that no safety risk would be posed by its location near a residential neighborhood.

Borough of Essex Fells v. Kessler Inst. for Rehab., Inc., 673 A.2d 856 (N.J. Super. 1995). Operator of rehabilitation facility challenged local government decision to condemn property on grounds that condemnation for public park was a pretext for discrimination. Held that the condemnation was filed in bad faith, and borough was interested in taking land to prevent location of group home in the community.

Broussard v. City of Pasadena, CV 09-7079 AHM FFMX, 2010 WL 135331 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010). City zoning code challenged on grounds that it prohibited the operation of large group homes, classified as boarding houses, in residential areas. Held that city allowed group homes in residential areas and boarding house operated by plaintiffs was larger than a typical residential dwelling.

Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard Cnty., 124 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 1997). Operator of home for elderly people with mental and physical disabilities sought zoning change and approvals for operation of home, was denied by county planning officials; home operator filed suit. Held that reasonable accommodation claims are ripe once accommodation has been denied and there is no need for post-denial procedures to be employed; held that evidence of successful small group homes was sufficient to rebut claim that increased occupancy requested was necessary. Further held that defendant was not entitled to attorneys' fees.

Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard Cnty., 911 F. Supp. 918 (D. Md. 1996). Operator of home for elderly mentally and physically disabled people sought zoning change and approvals for operation of home, was denied by county planning officials; home operator filed suit. Held that local residents' complaints about proposed use were not related to residents' disabilities, and purposes behind denial were legitimate planning considerations; held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate disparate impact due to isolated decision; held that occupancy limitation of eight residents as opposed to 15 as desired by developer was a proper balance between the county's legitimate interest and the developer's needs, and vacancy rates at nearby assisted living facilities suggested that the accommodation was not necessary.

Budnick v. Town of Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2008). Developer challenged city denial of special use permit application by continuing care retirement community developer. Held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that elderly residents of proposed facility were disabled, and contention that residents would become disabled is insufficient; held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate impact.

Candlehouse, Inc. v. Town ofVestal, No. 3:11-CV-0093 (DEP), 2013 WL 1867114 (N.D.N.Y. May 3, 2013). Christian faith-based residential treatment facility for women brought Fair Housing Act, ADA, and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claims against town for failure to permit operation of facility in residentially zoned area. Granted town's summary judgment motion on question of disparate impact and RLUIPA claim and denied summary judgment motions on questions of reasonable accommodation and disparate treatment.

Caron Found. of Fla. v. City of Delray Beach, 879 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2012). Substance abuse treatment center sought preliminary injunction against city's enforcement of zoning ordinance against home. Held that plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of reasonable accommodation claim due to failure to supply requested application materials; held also that plaintiff was likely to demonstrate success on question of whether city's "transient use" ordinance was passed as a pretext for intentional discrimination.

Children's Alliance v. City of Bellevue, 950 F. Supp. 1491 (WD. Wash. 1997). Group living facility for children challenged city regulations that severely limited group homes' ability to locate in city. Held that ordinance language distinguishing certain group living facilities from others was facially discriminatory.

Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Ctr. v. St. George City, 685 F.3d 917 (10th Cir. 2012). Residential facility for youth with cognitive and emotional disorders unsuccessfully sought variance for use of top floor of an operating motel for additional housing and filed suit under FHAA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act. Held that city did not intentionally discriminate, ordinance did not create disparate impact, and requested accommodation was neither reasonable nor necessary because city did not allow anyone—with or without disabilities—to permanently reside in commercial zoning district.

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995). Sober house failed to meet zoning ordinance standard limiting the number of unrelated people who could reside in a single-family home in a single-family residential district; city brought suit to enjoin operation of the home. Held that limitation on unrelated people occupying a dwelling did not fall within the FHAA exception for maximum occupancy ordinances.

Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise, 490 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Residents of city-owned homeless and domestic violence shelter filed suit on claim of gender discrimination when operator of house was told to remove female residents in anticipation of move to a gender-segregated homeless facility. Held that plaintiffs made out claim of facial discrimination and that city's proffered justifications were insufficient to warrant grant of summary judgment. Held that district court did not err in granting summary judgment to city on disparate treatment claim relating to disability discrimination, as there was no evidence that plaintiffs were treated differently based on their disabilities.

Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Wind Gap Mun. Auth., 421 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2005). For-profit group home challenged municipal sewer authority's determination that facility was commercial. Held that determination was not discriminatory because the ordinance definition of "personal care home" did not necessarily mean that people with disabilities would live there, nor was the classification a proxy for facial discrimination, and for-profit status made it acceptable that the facility would be classified as commercial.

Conn. Hosp. v. City of New London, 129 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D. Conn. 2001). Plaintiffs sought...