MASSACHUSETTS

United States District Court

Brighton Vill. Nominee Trust v. Malyshev
2004 WL 594974 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2004)
Keys: L-ACC, L-FIN
The owner of an apartment complex brought an action to evict tenants, who counterclaimed and brought claims against the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). After claims between the landlord and the tenants were settled, the tenants pursued other claims against HUD, including one alleging that HUD had failed to accommodate their disabilities by extending rental assistance that would ensure that they paid no more than 30 percent of their incomes as rent. Citing to Salute v. Stratford Greens Apartments (see Second Circuit, below), the court granted HUD summary judgment on this claim, holding that a request for increased economic assistance is not permissible for accommodation of a disability.   

NEW HAMPSHIRE

New Hampshire State Court

White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman
855 A.2d 437 (N.H. 2004)
Keys: L-ACC, L-HSK
A tenant with mobility impairments because of severe arthritis received an eviction notice for noncompliance with lease provisions regarding removal of garbage. She asked for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act to permit her to put garbage in the laundry room or hallway so that she did not have to use stairs to get to the dumpster. Her landlord refused this accommodation, but offered alternatives, including the installation of additional railings in the stairwell, modification of the garbage-pickup schedule, seeking help from outside agencies and agreeing to have the tenant’s garbage picked up in inclement weather. When the tenant continued to place garbage in prohibited areas, the landlord secured an eviction order from a state trial court. On appeal, the state supreme court affirmed, holding that the FHA required the landlord to “provide a reasonable accommodation for [the tenant], not her ideal accommodation.”

RHODE ISLAND

United States District Court

Caron v. City of Pawtucket
307 F. Supp. 2d 364 (D.R.I. 2004)
Keys: Z-PRM, Z-OPP, Z-SEN
Owners of a nursing facility for the elderly sued the city for refusal to issue a certificate of zoning compliance. The district court held that the residents of the home were not handicapped within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act by virtue of age alone, and the city’s refusal to issue the certificate could not constitute a discriminatory practice. Even assuming that the residents had disabilities within the meaning of the law, the owners also failed to show that the city’s refusal intentionally discriminated against the elderly residents. Although departures from normal procedure can provide a basis for finding discriminatory intent, the court found that the city had frequently reversed its position and that this was the result of confusion and the owners’ tenacity and perseverance, not of any animus toward people with disabilities. The court further found that the owners failed to establish disparate impact because there was no evidence of the city’s historical treatment of convalescent homes, or that the decision in this case was a departure from normal practice, or that other nursing facilities would be denied the necessary certification.