Seventh Judicial Circuit
Good Shepherd v. City of Momence
323 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003)
Z-PRM
City officials shut off the water supply to the plaintiff's property,
which houses adults with developmental disabilities, claiming that the owners
had refused to fulfill an agreement to extend the water and sewage lines
to the
property's northern border. On the plaintiff's allegations of discrimination
under the Fair Housing Act, the trial court ruled on a jury verdict in
favor of the city. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the court had
erred by:
(1) not allowing the plaintiff to present a theory of failure to reasonably
accommodate
to the jury; (2) refusing certain proffered jury instructions; and (3)
excluding testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness. The circuit court
held that
the service of water is something needed by all people and that, therefore,
the
city's failure to provide the "reasonable accommodation" of providing
water to the plaintiff's group homes did not hurt the plaintiff's residents
because of their handicap but, instead, hurt them because of what they
have in common with other people, the need for water. It further held that
the proffered
instruction was deficient and was properly excluded by the trial court.
Finally, the proffered testimony was largely on purely legal matters that
were conclusory
and the court ruled that expert testimony as to legal conclusions that
determine the outcome of the case are inadmissible.
Illinois
Cotton v. Alexian Brothers Bonaventure House
2003 WL 22110501 (N.D. Ill. Sept.
9, 2003)
L-EVI
As a transitional-living program for people with HIV/AIDS, Alexian Brothers
Bonaventure House receives federal funding through the Housing Opportunities
for People With AIDS program (HOPWA). HOPWA regulations provide that
affiliated housing programs may terminate assistance to a resident who violates "program
requirements or conditions of occupancy." However, HOPWA regulations
also stipulate that, in terminating assistance to a resident "for
violation of requirements," an affiliated housing program must provide
a formal process that includes A) serving the resident with written notice
containing
a clear statement of the reasons for termination, B) allowing the resident
to contest the decision by written objections and with counsel, and C)
providing written notification of the final decision. Gregory Cotton and
Emory Borden,
separately accused of inappropriate behavior, were both terminated from
the program without receiving either a written explanation or a chance
to contest
the accusations. Bonaventure House defended its actions by arguing that
its involuntary discharge policy gives the house discretion to ask a resident
to
leave immediately when that resident has threatened another person with
bodily harm. Bonaventure reasoned that the HOPWA requirement of written
notice and
a hearing only applied to violations of "program requirements," and
not to violations of "conditions of occupancy." The court rejected
this argument, interpreting the HOPWA requirements as encompassing violations
of both requirements and conditions of occupancy. The court held that unless
Cotton had posed an imminent threat to other residents and employees, or
some other emergency existed, he was entitled to a hearing before having
his residency
terminated. The court also held that, since providing a written statement
of reasons for termination involves minimal preparation, HOPWA affiliates
are
required to provide pre-termination notice even where a resident is dangerous
and must be removed quickly.
For more information, email michaela@bazelon.org
|
