Major Settlement Reached in Emotional Support Animal Records Case
- At March 10, 2020
- By fhfla
- In News
0
The Fair Housing Center of the Greater Palm Beaches (FHC) has won a major victory in it’s fight to stop housing discrimination in Palm Beach County after a lawsuit filed against Castle Management and the Pines of Delray Condominium Association. The lawsuit and subsequent settlement came after a complaint filed with the FHC by Gregory Raheb. The defendants, who admitted no wrong doing, agreed to fair housing training in addition to confidential monetary relief in order to settle allegations of housing discrimination, based on disability.
The complaint alleges that Raheb’s doctor recommended that he obtain an emotional support animal due to his disability. In response to medical advice he adopted Harrison in 2012, a 12-pound toy Manchester Terrier. Harrison, who is 8 years old, ameliorates the symptoms of his disability.
The complaint alleges that on or about July 30, 2018, Mr. Raheb entered into a contract to purchase a condominium unit at the Pines of Delray, located in Delray Beach with a closing date the following September. He completed the application and informed the Administrative Assistant at Pines of Delray, who also worked at Castle Management, that he had an Emotional Support Animal, and requested paperwork for his animal. In addition, Mr. Raheb further provided a letter from his physician, veterinarian records for his Emotional Support Animal, and photographs of his Emotional Support Animal.
But late in the month of September and well after the closing date the complaint alleged that Mr. Raheb received a letter from the Pines of Delray HOA Attorney advising that the documentation provided was insufficient, and demanded additional documentation into the nature and extent of Raheb’s disability including but not limited to the following inquiries:
- Specifically identify the disability from which you suffer which necessitates an emotional support animal on the basis of disability.
- Please identify the exact medical diagnosis you’ve received, as well as the approximate date when you were diagnosed with the condition, and please provide the name and contact information for the doctor who diagnosed the condition.
- State, with specificity, how the presence of an emotional support animal in the condominium can mitigate the symptoms associated with the condition.
Mr. Raheb contacted the FHC, which counseled Raheb and provided him a certification form for his doctor to complete. Raheb forwarded that certification and Fair Housing guidance, provided by FHC staff, to Castle Management staff and implored them to follow the Fair Housing Act. It is alleged in the complaint that the Castle employee advised Rabeb that the board will not approve his request until they hear from the attorney, and that this is the same process that other buyers who have an emotional support animal had to go through.
It is alleged in the complaint that FHC staff contacted the HOA Attorney directly and sent him a letter advising him of the request for accommodation with the doctor’s certification on behalf of Rahab. The complaint alleges that the primary reason for the denial of the accommodation was the preference of Pines of Delray’s for cats, rather than dogs to assist with Raheb’s disability.
“Housing providers are not entitled to medical records, list of medications or diagnoses” stated Bobbie Fletcher, FHC Vice President. The FHC will not tolerate housing discrimination against persons with disabilities period.”
The complaint alleged that the actions of Pines of Delray and Castle Management, as described above, constituted a pattern, practice, and policy of housing discrimination on the basis of disability by invasive inquiries on prospective buyers who request an assistance animal.
“We commend Mr. Rahab for standing up for his rights” stated Vince Larkins, FHC President & CEO. “Mr. Raheb, those like him, as well as watchdog fair housing organizations such as the FHC, according to the Supreme Court in Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins,’….act not only on their own behalf but also as private attorneys generals in vindicating a policy that Congress considered to be of the highest priority” he further stated.
The plaintiffs were represented by Matthew Dietz, Esq., Litigation Director of the Disability Independence Group, who specializes in this area of fair housing litigation.
If you are a housing provider and are in need of training pertaining to your obligations and responsibilities under federal, State and local fair housing laws and ordinances contact the FHC at 561-533-8717.
HUD ISSUES GUIDANCE ON REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT RELATING TO ASSISTANCE ANIMALS
- At March 10, 2020
- By fhfla
- In News
- 0
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced the publication of guidance clarifying how housing providers can comply with the Fair Housing Act when assessing a person’s request to have an animal in housing to provide assistance because of a disability.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing against individuals who have disabilities that affect a major life activity. The Act requires housing providers to permit a change or exception to a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary to provide people with disabilities that affect a major life activity an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home. In most circumstances, a refusal to make such a change or exception, known as a reasonable accommodation, is unlawful.
A common reasonable accommodation is an exception to a no pet policy. A person with a disability that affects a major life activity may require the assistance of an animal that does work, performs tasks, or provides therapeutic emotional support because of the disability. Housing providers may confirm, if it is not apparent, whether the requested accommodation is needed because of a disability that affects a major life activity and is a reasonable request.
This new Assistance Animal Notice will help housing providers in this process by offering a step-by-step set of best practices for complying with the Act when assessing accommodation requests involving animals and information that a person may need to provide about his or her disability-related need for the requested accommodation, including supporting information from a health care professional.
Additionally, this new Assistance Animal Notice provides information on the types of animals that typically may be appropriate and best practices for when the requested animal is one that is not traditionally kept in the home. It also provides information for both housing providers and persons with disabilities regarding the reliability of documentation of a disability or disability-related need for an animal that is obtained from third parties, including internet-based services offering animal certifications or registrations for purchase.
Because they apply to more types of facilities than housing, the laws applicable to public accommodations and government funded facilities, including Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, while sometimes overlapping with the Fair Housing Act, have different, and sometimes narrower, requirements. Similarly, public transportation and common carriers, such as airlines, are also subject to different rules. The Assistance Animal Notice does not address those circumstances.
Judge Rules that Punitive Damages are Available Against Municipalities Under Fair Housing Act. Allows Case to Proceed
- At March 10, 2020
- By fhfla
- In News
- 0
A federal court issued a landmark ruling permitting disability rights claims to proceed to trial against the Town of Cromwell, Connecticut and several of its officials, and holding that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) enables Plaintiffs to pursue punitive damages against the Town.
Gilead Community Services v. Town of Cromwell, brought by Relman and Colfax PLLC on behalf of Plaintiffs Gilead Community Services and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center (CFHC) challenged a campaign to run a group home for people with disabilities out of town.
In 2015, Gilead purchased a single-family property in Cromwell that it intended to use as a group home for six men with disabilities. While such a home is permitted by-right under state law in any residential neighborhood, Defendants responded to community opposition by using the full weight of their authority to force Gilead to close down the home. Gilead and CFHC allege that the Town’s illegal and concerted campaign-which included amplifying and stoking community opposition, pursuing a petition to deny Gilead a license, issuing an unfounded cease and desist order and denying Gilead’s tax-exempt status-violates the FHA, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
In denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts, U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden held that there was substantial evidence to support a finding that the Town’s conduct violated the civil rights statutes by making housing unavailable, interfering with Gilead’s right to operate the home, retaliating against Gilead for asserting its fair housing rights, and stating the Town’s preference that people with mental illnesses not live in Cromwell.
The Court also rejected Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, citing to the Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in City of Cleburne, and finding well-established the proposition that “it is a violation of equal protection for government officials to take action against people with disabilities based on prejudice that the citizenry may harbor against them.” The Court’s decision paves the way for all of Plaintiffs’ disability discrimination claims to proceed to trial.
The Court also held that the FHA contemplates the assessment of punitive damages against all defendants, including municipalities. In doing so, the Court squarely rejected the Town’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Newport v. Fact Concerts (that a municipality is immune to punitive damages for violations of § 1983) extended to the FHA. It reasoned that the FHA’s “broad and express provision of punitive damages without any articulated exception stands in contrast to both § 1983[] and Title VII[.]” Because Plaintiffs had introduced evidence of improper Town and taxpayer behavior, the Court held that the Town was not immune from the assessment of punitive damages by a jury.
Finally, the Court’s ruling also clarified that the Town Manager and Mayor face individual liability for their own discriminatory conduct, and that under traditional principles of vicarious liability, the Town faces exposure for those same acts. Trial will thus proceed against all Defendants, and at trial, Plaintiffs will be entitled to introduce evidence that each Defendant is liable for compensatory and punitive damages.
The firm’s litigation team is led by Tara Ramchandani, Yiyang Wu, and Andrea Lowe, along with co-counsel Greg Kirschner of CHFC.
Landmark $1,187,500 Settlement Reached in Criminal Records Case
- At November 26, 2019
- By fhfla
- In News
- 0
The Fortune Society, represented by Relman, Dane & Colfax, has resolved its Fair Housing Act lawsuit against the owners and operators of the Sandcastle, an apartment complex in Queens, New York, with over 900 units. The settlement is one of the largest in a case challenging a ban on renting to people with criminal records, if not the very largest. Fortune provides housing and other services to formerly incarcerated individuals. It alleged that when it tried to rent apartments for its clients at Sandcastle in 2013 and 2014, defendants refused because of their policy of prohibiting anyone with a criminal record from living there.
Fortune alleged that the policy unlawfully discriminates because it disproportionately bars African Americans and Latinos from housing without considering each potential tenant’s individual history and circumstances.
As one of the first cases in the country challenging a blanket ban on renting to people with criminal records as discriminatory, the lawsuit has been closely watched in the advocacy community, industry and government. After the case was filed, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued Guidance endorsing Fortune’s legal theory.
Sandcastle will pay Fortune $1,187,500. This will send a powerful message to other landlords that they must evaluate each applicant as an individual instead of automatically rejecting those with a criminal history. This is critical because obtaining affordable housing is central to successful reintegration for the hundreds of thousands of Americans – disproportionately people of color – released from confinement every year.
The settlement follows the Court’s July decision denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment and allowing the case to proceed to trial. The decision rejected defendants’ argument that Fortune itself was not harmed by the policy and so did not have standing to pursue the case. By paving the way for other advocacy organizations that work on criminal justice and housing issues to challenge blanket bans in their communities, this will open the door to safe and affordable housing for people across the country.
The decision also provides a valuable roadmap for how to prove that a blanket ban exists and that it is discriminatory. It shows how evidence from tenant files, marketing, emails, and phone calls can establish a blanket policy. It also shows how to successfully identify and analyze local demographic data for a qualified applicant pool, and use that data to prove that a blanket ban disparately impacts people of color. The owners of Sandcastle when the lawsuit was filed have sold the building and do not currently own or rent real estate.
The litigation was led by John Relman, Glenn Schlactus and Jia Cobb of Relman, Dane & Colfax.
