NORTH CAROLINA

Unites States District Court

United States v. Quality Built Construction
309 F.Supp.2d 756 (E.D.N.C. 2003)
Keys: O-ACC
The federal government sued a builder and an architectural firm, alleging that the design and construction of two apartment complexes violated the Fair Housing Act’s accessibility standards. Following the decision in Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. v. Rommel Builders, Inc., 3 F.Supp.2d 661 (D. Md. 1998), the court held that all participants in the design and construction of a building covered by the FHA are liable for noncompliance, and granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly the builder was not able to claim reliance on the expertise of the architectural firm and its certification that the plans complied with the building requirement. In a related opinion, reported at 309 F.Supp.2d 767 (E.D.N.C. 2003), the court granted the federal government’s motion for summary judgment that the identical apartments in new buildings within the complex also violated the FHAA. In a subsequent opinion, the court granted summary judgment with respect to the government’s claims concerning the inaccessibility of step-up entries, public and common-use areas, routes into and through individual units, and electrical outlets and thermostats. See United States v. Quality Built Construction, 309 F.Supp.2d 767 (E.D.N.C. 2003).

Maryland

United States District Court

Randall L. Vance v. Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, Maryland
332 F. Supp.2d 832 (D.Md. 2004)
Keys: L-SER L-ACC
Randall Vance, who has schizophrenia, sued Housing Opportunities (HOC) of Montgomery, Maryland, claiming that he was denied reinstatement into the program after being terminated a year before. The McKinney Homeless Assistance Act aids homeless people with disabilities by funding agencies such as HOC through its Supportive Housing Program. The program provided supportive health services and employment counseling to Vance, on condition that he work, socialize, maintain psychiatric and medical stability and care for his child. Vance was terminated from the program after repeatedly failing to pay his rent or keep a job. He appealed and had the termination rescinded provided that  he comply with specific conditions, but was again unable to comply. When he applied for reinstatement a year later, HOC declined. Alleging that he had not been afforded due process, that HOC had violated the disability provisions of the Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act, and that HOC did not provide reasonable accommodation for his psychiatric disability, Vance sued, requesting restoration of supportive services. The court granted in part his request for a preliminary injunction, noting that while his claims under the FHA and Rehabilitation Act were weak, his due process rights had been violated. Specifically,Vance had not been given written notice stating the reasons for termination or an opportunity to present written or oral objections. The court determined that because the management of his personal affairs had been Vance’s major problem, HOC was to provide counseling for him relating to housing and employment and re-interview him to determine his eligibility to re-enter the supportive housing program. 

Significance:  The court demonstrated its understanding of the obstacles confronting participants with psychiatric disabilities and lectured HOC on its obligations to help to prevent their homelessness: “The Court understands that a primary objective of the McKinney Supportive Housing Program is to make homeless individuals, including those with psychiatric handicaps, more self-sufficient. Clearly at some point a non-compliant participant may be shown the door. But the Court returns once again to the fact of Vance's psychiatric condition. Due process, if not fair housing or disability law, entitled him to appropriate solicitude. He needed guidance on how to engage an attorney for free to assist at his termination hearing; how to challenge the ex parte access that his case workers had to the Appeal Panel; how to challenge the denial of his right to be heard when he violated his ‘probation;’ how to challenge an arbitrary declaration that he could not reapply to the Program for a year; how he might insist on the right to have someone accompany him to help articulate his position at his reinstatement interview; and how he might challenge the decision of the interviewers not to reinstate him.”

For more information, email michaela@bazelon.org