Many lawyers and governmental entities believe that anyone who is “disabled” for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must also be handicapped for purposes of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). This used to be true, but may not be anymore. The difference between a disability and a handicap has important practical implications for multi-family communities and others who are subject to the accessibility provisions of the FHA. More
ADA FHA General
One common bit of conventional wisdom under the FHA is that apartments and other housing providers cannot require a pet deposit for an assistance animal or service animal. This is certainly the position of HUD and the DOJ. (See, HUD memo dated April 25, 2013 and see http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm). The position is based on the notion that because a disabled person is required to have a service animal it is discriminatory to require anything of such a person that would not be required of a person without a disability who had no pet. See Intermountain Fair Hous. Council v. CVE Falls Park, L.L.C., 2011 WL 2945824 (D. Idaho 2011). The question of whether it indeed violates the FHA to require what would be more rationally called an “animal damage deposit” is really more nuanced than this. More
On July 23 the Depart of Justice published a notice of proposed rulemaking on accessibility in movie theaters for those with vision and hearing disabilities. (http://www.ada.gov/regs2014/movie_nprm.html). The public comment period begins today. The proposed rules will require most movie theaters to buy equipment so that customers with hearing disabilities and vision disabilities can participate in the movie watching experience. There are numerous limits and caveats, but what I find most interesting is the analysis of costs and benefits, in which the DOJ admits that it has little or no data to support a claim that the benefits are worth the costs. Consider some of the DOJ’s admissions about its own ignorance: More
This is a short follow-up to my May 14 blog “know when to fold ‘em.” A couple of weeks after I published that piece a decision came out from the Northern District of Georgia that dramatically illustrates the risk of a vigorous defense in a losing case.
Defense counsel interested in the legal principles that guide attorney’s fee awards in ADA cases will find it useful to read the full opinion in Gaylor v. Greenbriar of Dahlonega: Shopping Center, Inc., 2014 WL 2195719 (N.D. Ga., May 27, 2014) . However, the gist of the holding can be found in one short paragraph: More
A victory for common sense: 11th Circuit FHA ruling rejects subsequent owner liability in multi-family housing
In a decision issued on April 14, 2014 the 11th Circuit provided a major victory for subsequent owners of apartments and other types multi-family housing. In Harding v. Orlando Apts. LLC, 748 F.3d 1128 (11th Cir. 2014) the Court dismissed the notion that merely owning or operating an apartment complex could create liability for a failure of the apartments to meet the FHA design standards. Following the best reasoning of scattered earlier district court decisions the Court found that the clear language of the FHA imposed design and construction liability only on those involved in the original design and construction, and that the general anti-discrimination provisions of the FHA did not create an ongoing duty to bring a multi-family development into compliance with the design standards. (See my blog of November 21, 2013 for background on the pending district court cases). More