The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) has sued eight companies that operate 16 assisted living facilities in the Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe metro areas. The lawsuit alleges the companies discriminated against prospective elderly residents who have been deaf since birth and primarily communicate in American Sign Language (ASL).

 

In a series of phone calls and on-site visits conducted over the past year and a half by fair housing testers on behalf of NFHA, staff of each senior living facility either refused to provide a potential elderly deaf resident with qualified ASL interpreters or other aids and services to ensure they would be able to communicate effectively, or the facility said interpretation services would be charged to the resident or their family. NFHA alleges that these acts are a violation of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing providers, including senior living facilities, from discriminating against people with disabilities. The lawsuits come just weeks after the anniversary of the Act’s signing 52 years ago. The US Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey found that 14.8 percent of people over the age of 65 have a hearing disability.

 

Fair housing laws provide distinct protections for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. These consumers have the right to interpreters or other aids to ensure they can effectively communicate with housing providers.

“Senior living facilities that deprive people of their rights are unnecessarily exacerbating housing challenges for those who are most at-risk in our society,” said Lisa Rice, President and CEO of NFHA. She continued, “Especially at a time when elderly people are among those most vulnerable to COVID-19, it is critical that the people charged with their care do all they can to provide them with the legally required services they need to ensure their health and wellbeing. For people who are deaf or hard of hearing, that includes ASL interpreters or other effective communication aids. We are filing these actions in court to hold these companies accountable.”

 

This case is not the first time NFHA has had to advocate on behalf of people who are deaf or hard of hearing.In 2013, NFHA and 11 of its member organizations investigated 117 national or regional rental firms in 98 cities and 25 states and discovered sustained patterns of housing discrimination against apartment seekers who were deaf or hard of hearing.

Housing providers may not refuse a reasonable accommodation request from a person who is deaf or hard of hearing to have important information communicated through ASL or other effective auxiliary aids. Also, housing providers are required to provide interpretation services to people who are deaf or hard of hearing free of charge unless doing so would place an undue financial hardship on the provider.

Examples of discriminatory conduct contained in the eight different lawsuits filed today include:

 

●      The facility’s flat refusal to provide an ASL interpreter

●      The facility’s provision that it would allow an interpreter, but only if the resident or the resident’s family would pay for those services

●      The facility’s recommendation that the resident’s family use a senior living placement service to find a senior living facility that better fits the needs of a potential resident

●      The facility’s statement that it would not be a good fit for the prospective deaf resident

●      The facility’s statement that, while it had access to ASL resources, it could not guarantee the service would be available on a continual basis and if there are costs associated with the ASL service, the resident may have to pay half of the charges

 

The lawsuits were filed against Brookdale Senior Living, Spectrum Retirement Communities, Pacifica Senior Living, LifeSpire Assisted Living, LeisureCare, and BeeHive Homes. These companies operate the 16 facilities (full list below) investigated by NFHA in New Mexico and Utah, covering over 1,100 beds. Brookdale Senior Living is the largest assisted living provider in the country with control of over 41,485 assisted living units nationwide. BeeHive Homes operates over 170 facilities in 20 states. With this reach, the companies have the ability to affect hundreds of thousands of families, making it critical to hold them accountable to the Fair Housing Act.

 

“We strongly support the protection of fair housing rights, which are always under attack, especially the rights of deaf persons,” said Diana Dorn-Jones, Executive Director of United South Broadway Corporation, an Albuquerque-based community development agency focused on fair housing and fair lending in the state of New Mexico. “We stand firmly behind the National Fair Housing Alliance in their actions to litigate fair housing laws whenever necessary.”

 

NFHA is represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP. The lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah and the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.  

 

A federal court in Indiana has certified a class in a lawsuit challenging reverse redlining and violations of consumer protection laws in a rent-to-own housing program operated by Rainbow Realty Group, its owner James Hotka, and associated entities. Because defendants failed to seek immediate review in the Seventh Circuit the case will continue in the trial court as a class action. This is a major step toward obtaining redress for thousands of households harmed by a program that held out the promise of homeownership.

 

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants use the promise of homeownership to lure people into toxic “rent-to-own” contracts for dilapidated houses in the Indianapolis area, reviving predatory land contract practices that denied fair homeownership opportunities to residents of minority neighborhoods during much of the twentieth century. Relman Colfax represents the plaintiff class, which includes over 3,000 current and former Rainbow customers—many of them people of color—who entered into rent-to-own agreements with Rainbow since 2009. The firm also represents the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, an advocacy organization promoting equal housing opportunity.

 

In the decision, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. held that defendants’ liability for violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth-in-Lending Act, and the Indiana Home Loan Practices Act can be determined for the entire class, and not just for individual victims. Judge Miller will also address Truth-in-Lending damages on a class-wide basis, while other aspects of damages will be determined in subsequent proceedings.

 

The Relman Colfax team is led by Glenn Schlactus, Jenn Klar, Yiyang Wu, Andrea Lowe and Zachary Best, with paralegal assistance from Abigail Moats, Isabel Tessier, and Allison Verrilli. Cate, Terry & Gookins is local counsel. 

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:

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.