SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

United States v. Edward Rose & Sons
384 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2004)
Keys: O-ACC
The federal government brought a lawsuit against a property developer and the architects of two apartment complexes to halt the construction and occupancy of the buildings, claiming that the apartments violated the design and construction accessibility standards of the Fair Housing Act. The central issue concerned the inaccessibility of the area outside the front door to each building. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, agreeing with the government that the front door was the primary entrance for the public and guests and so fit under the “common area” accessibility requirement of the FHA. The Sixth Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction, reasoning that because apartments share the stair landing, the stair landing qualified as a common area that must be accessible.

Hamm v. City of Gahanna, Ohio
2004 WL 2030058 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2004), affirming 2002 WL 31951272
(S.D.Ohio 2002)
Keys: Z-OPP, Z-ACC, Z-SEN
Landowners sued the city, its mayor and members of its city council, claiming that they unlawfully refused to re-zone the landowner’s property to allow construction of group homes for seniors and people with disabilities. The trial court rejected their claims of intentional discrimination, finding only a scintilla of discriminatory animus and evidence insufficient to sustain a claim of disparate-impact discrimination on the basis of disability. Finally, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ reasonable accommodation claim on the basis they had made no showing that the city’s failure to permit construction of the group homes would deny people with disabilities the right to live in the particular neighborhood. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that the plaintiffs had failed to present evidence to show that impermissible “discriminatory purpose was a motivation factor” in the city council’s decision to reject their application. The landowners also failed to show that “but for the accommodation” the intended residents of the proposed facilities “likely will be denied an equal opportunity” to live in single-family neighborhoods. The landowners had the option of subdividing their property to create small group homes, and there were other group homes available for elderly and disabled individuals in Gahanna’s single-family neighborhoods.  

For more information, email michaela@bazelon.org