CityVision Services, Inc. has recently filed a number of complaints with HUD under the Fair Housing Act. Those I am familiar with all follow the same pattern. Someone from CityVision calls an apartment complex asking about pet deposit policies and then mentions a therapy animal. The manager or leasing agent makes the mistake of saying all animals require a pet deposit. No one ever comes to the complex or makes a rental application, but CityVision files a Fair Housing complaint on its own behalf as a “tester.” The apartment owners I’ve spoken with were all located in East Texas, but the extent of this particular effort by CityVision Services is impossible to tell because HUD complaints are not public. More
Policies and Procedures FHA ADA
ADA Maintenance – An ounce of prevention . . . .
One of the many ADA risks that businesses face is the risk of sliding into non-compliance through maintenance failures. This seems to come up most often in the context of parking, because the markings required for accessible parking are exposed to the weather and to wear from car tires. I recently settled a case of this type, and a reported opinion from California was a reminder of how important maintenance can be.
In Lozano v. C.A. Martinez Family Ltd. P’ship, 2015 WL 5227869, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015), the complaint concerned nothing more complicated than striping accessible parking. The paint had faded and on repeated occasions over months the access aisles were blocked. As soon as the lawsuit was filed the owner repainted, but that was too late for the Court, which found that a policy of re-striping that apparently had not been followed would not let the owner escape an injunction and, of course, paying fees to the plaintiff’s attorney. More
Disparate Impact – Will it now apply to disability discrimination under the FHA?
On June 25 the Supreme Court held that FHA discrimination claims can be based on disparate impact. Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 2015 WL 2473449, at *9 (U.S. June 25, 2015). At first blush this doesn’t seem to have much to do with accessibility claims. When we talk about the policies that discriminate against those with disabilities we usually look at 42 U.S.C. Section 3604(f)(3)(B), which requires reasonable accommodation; that is, exceptions to a policy because the policy has a disproportionate impact on those with disabilities. However, Inclusive Communities Project may have its own disparate impact on claims of disability discrimination. More
ADA Policies – you’ve got to walk the walk
Curtis v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 WL 351437 (E.D. Cal. 2015) is not an unusual case, but that makes it a good reminder that an ADA policy doesn’t do any good if it isn’t implemented. The fact that there are so many cases like Curtis proves that many businesses don’t understand that just because it’s written doesn’t make it true.
In Curtis one of the plaintiff’s many complaints about his local Home Depot was that the accessible route from the accessible parking to the store’s front door was frequently blocked by merchandise displays. Before filing suit he complained to the store manager, but without effect. Home Depot’s defense was that the issue was moot because it had a policy against blocking the access aisle and, after the lawsuit was filed, the manager testified that the access aisles were not being blocked. More
ADA compliance – half right is all wrong
Two realities dominate the world of ADA compliance and defense. First, the ADA is a no-fault statute: good intentions don’t matter and innocence is no defense. Second, even when barrier removal is impossible, a business still has an obligation to try to become accessible. Two recent cases show how the failure to remember this can lead to failure in the defense of a lawsuit.
Snyder v. Lady Slings the Booze, LLC, 2014 WL 7366665 (W.D. Ky 2014) presented a fairly common problem. The step up to the defendant bar (whose name along makes the case worth citing) was higher than permitted by the ADA, but could not be ramped because a ramp would protrude into a city sidewalk. The defendant did the right thing at the beginning and tried to apply for a permit, but when the permit was denied apparently decided the case was over. Barrier removal was not readily achievable, and so, the defendant thought, it was off the hook for ADA compliance. More