United States Court of Appeals

Ventura Village, Inc., et al. v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota,
419 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2005), affirming 318 F.Supp.2d 822 (D.Minn. 2004)
Keys: Z-OPP, Z-DSP
Neighborhood opponents filed a Fair Housing Act claim challenging the city’s decision to waive its one-quarter-mile spacing rule and grant a conditional-use permit for a supportive housing community. The opponents claimed that both the city’s approval and its general policy of waiving the spacing rule led to the concentration of supportive housing in a small number of predominately minority neighborhoods. Moreover, the opponents claimed that by refusing to waive the spacing rule in predominately white neighborhoods, the city denied people with disabilities the opportunity to choose where they wished to live. In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the city on all counts, the Eighth Circuit found that the opponents had failed to put forth evidence sufficient to prove their discriminatory-enforcement allegation. In particular, the court noted that the city had never denied a conditional-use permit for a supportive housing development and that more than half of all such permits had been approved in majority white neighborhoods.
The court also distinguished this case from Familystyle v. City of St. Paul, 923 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1991), in which the court upheld the enforcement of a spacing rule under rational basis review. Here, the court stated that while enforcement of a spacing rule may be justifiable under the FHA, the statute does not require a municipality to enforce its spacing rule. Therefore, the city’s policy of waiving its spacing rule, even if it resulted in the concentration of supportive housing, did not violate the FHA because there had been no showing of disability or race discrimination on the city’s part.

Paraquad, Inc. v. St. Louis Housing Authority
259 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2001)
Keys: L-SCR, O-ACC
Two public housing tenants with disabilities and three organizations that provide services to people with disabilities brought this lawsuit asserting that the housing authority violated the Fair Housing Act, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act in its plans for revitalization of a public housing complex. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the controversy was not ripe for adjudication because the injury was not “certainly impending.” The plaintiffs claimed the authority’s plan excluded non-elderly people with disabilities from occupancy in a new elderly-only development, set aside no housing for people with disabilities, and contained no supports for them. Rejecting these claims, the court noted that the plaintiffs could not identify any individuals who had been denied accessible housing. Because the revitalization plans had not been completed and the units had not been built, the court held that the case was brought prematurely, and dismissed it.

MINNESOTA

United States District Court

Whitfield v. Public Housing Agency of City of St. Paul
2004 WL 1212082 (D.Minn. 2004)
Keys: L-ACC
A public housing authority issued a notice of termination to a tenant who suffered from depression for repeated failure to comply with housekeeping and yard-maintenance standards. An informal settlement provided for monthly inspections and the waiver of a grievance hearing on the current issue and any future reinstatement of tenancy-termination proceedings. Termination proceedings were reinstated when the tenant failed the first post-settlement inspection. The tenant vacated the apartment and brought an action in federal court claiming, inter alia, that the authority had refused to grant a reasonable accommodation by permitting her to stay notwithstanding her noncompliance with housekeeping standards, but did not specify what accommodation she wished the authority to provide. In dismissing her suit, the court held that although the authority has to provide accommodations, it is up to the tenant to “request a particular accommodation or accommodations, or at least to suggest a type of accommodation that might assist the tenant.” 

North Dakota Fair Housing Council, Inv. v. Allen
319 F. Supp. 2d 972 (D. Minn. 2004) 
Keys: L-EVI, L-ACC
The housing council and a tenant brought Fair Housing Act claims alleging that the landlord had discriminated against the tenant on the basis of her disability when she was singled out for a rent increase and when the landlord threatened her with eviction if she kept a dog, which she needed for therapeutic reasons. The court granted partial summary judgment for the landlord with respect to the council’s claims, finding that it did not have standing to sue because it had not demonstrated injury clearly traceable to the defendant’s alleged misconduct. The court denied the landlord’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the tenant’s claims that she had been discriminated against because of disability and that she was entitled to a reasonable accommodation to allow her to keep an emotional support animal, finding that the statute of limitations did not bar her claims and that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for the landlord.

Minnesota State Court Decisions

Dominium Management Services, Inc v. C.L.
2003 WL 22890386 (Minn. App. Dec. 3, 2003)
Keys: L-EVI, L-ACC
A tenant with a mental illness filed a lawsuit in state court alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act and state fair housing laws. The landlord filed an eviction action, having refused to renew the tenant’s lease and treating her as a holdover. At the close of evidence in the consolidated hearing, the trial court denied the landlord’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of disability and dismissed the eviction action, finding that the tenant was disabled under federal and state law, and that her requests for accommodation (that the landlord submit all non-emergency requests through her case manager) should have been granted. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the landlord had a duty to permit the tenant to continue her tenancy, and noting that the FHA imposes an affirmative duty on landlords to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities unless the landlord can show that the accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden.

For more information, email michaela@bazelon.org