Defending Unlawful Detainers with Reasonable Accommodation Requests [PDF]

SLIDE 1

Defending Unlawful Detainers with Reasonable Accommodation Requests

Ca ro lyn Go ld, E sq – Justic e & Dive rsity Ce nte r E rin K a ta ya ma , E sq . – Ho me le ss Advo c a c y Pro je c t

SLIDE 2

Session Overview

1.An Ove r vie w of Re asonable Ac c ommodations 2.Making the Re que st for an Ac c ommodation 3.T he Inte r ac tive Pr

c e ss

4.Using the De fe nse to De fe at an Unlawful De taine r

SLIDE 3

Part 1

An Ove rvie w o f Re a so na b le Ac c o mmo da tio ns

SLIDE 4

Part 1 Overview

1.T he L aws Re lating to Disability Disc r imination 2.What is a Disability? 3.What is an Ac c ommodation? 4.E xc e ptions

SLIDE 5

The Laws Relating to Disability Discrimination

F

air Housing Ac t, 42 U.S.C § 3601 e t se q.

Ame r

ic ans with Disabilitie s Ac t, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 e t se q.

Se c tion 504 of the 1973 Re habilitation Ac t, 29 U.S.C. § 701 e t se q.
Califor

nia F air E mployme nt and Housing Ac t, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 e t se q.

F E HA is to b e c o nstrue d lib e ra lly a nd ma y b e inte rpre te d to pro vide g re a te r pro te c tio ns tha n F e de ra l L a w. Auburn Wo o ds I Ho me o wne r’ s Ass’ n v. F E HC, 18 Ca l.Rptr.3d 669, 677-78, 121 Ca l.App.4th 1578 (2004).

SLIDE 6

Disability Defined

An individua l ha s a disability if tha t pe rso n ha s:

a physic al or

me ntal impair me nt that limits one or mor e life ac tivitie s, or

a histor

y of suc h impair me nt, or

is r

e gar de d as having suc h impair me nt

42 U.S.C. § 3602 (h)
Ca l. Go v’ t Co de § 12926

SLIDE 7

Disability Defined (continued)

In r e sponse to U.S. Supr e me Cour t c ase law nar r

wing the sc ope of the de finition of disability,

Congr e ss passe d the ADA Ame ndme nts Ac t of 2008.

T

he ADAAA sta te s tha t the “de finitio n o f disa b ility in this Ac t sha ll b e c o nstrue d in fa vo r o f b ro a d c o ve ra g e o f individua ls unde r this Ac t, to the ma ximum e xte nt pe rmitte d b y the te rms

f this Ac t.”
42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(a )

SLIDE 8

Accommodation Defined

An ac c ommodation is a c ha ng e to a rule , po lic y, pra c tic e , se rvic e o r pro c e dure whe n suc h a c c o mmo da tio ns a re ne c e ssa ry to a ffo rd a disa b le d pe rso n e q ua l o ppo rtunity to use o r e njo y the dwe lling o r pro g ra m.

42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)
S

e e Ca l. Go v’ t Co de § 12927(c )(1)

SLIDE 9

There Are Exceptions

A landlor d will not be r e quir e d to ac c ommodate if the te nanc y would:

“c o nstitute a dire c t thre a t to the he a lth a nd sa fe ty o f o the r

individua ls” o r

who se te na nc y wo uld re sult in sub sta ntia l physic a l da ma g e to

the pro pe rty o f o the rs.”

42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9)
“Dire c t thre a t” c a n b e suc c e sfful e ve n whe n the re is no e vide nc e o f a c tua l

ha rm to o the r te na nts

Po te ntia l fo r ha rm se e ms fa irly dire c t

SLIDE 10

Direct Threat Cases

F
ste r v. T

inne a -705 So . 2d 782 (L a App., De c . 1997) - te na nt who c ha se d c hildre n with knife a nd ma de ina ppro pria te se xua l c o mme nts c o nside re d a dire c t thre a t

Arno ld Murra y Co nstruc tio n, L

L C v. Hic ks 621 N.W. 2d 171,173 (S.D. 2001)- nudity in fro nt o f re side nts, ve rb a l a tta c ks a nd miso g ynist sig ns in windo w= dire c t thre a t

SLIDE 11

Still Requires a Reasonable Accommodation Analysis

L

a ndlo rd must sho w tha t no r

e asonable ac c ommodation will e liminate or “ac c e ptably minimize ” the risk po se d b y the te na nt.

Ro e V. Ho using Autho rity 909 F

. Supp 814, 822 (D. Co lo . 1995)

SLIDE 12

Part 2

Ma king the Re q ue st fo r a n Ac c o mmo da tio n

SLIDE 13

Part 2 Overview

1.Whe n? 2.How? 3.No magic wor ds ar e ne c e ssar y

SLIDE 14

When Should the Request be Made?

A r e que st for a r e asonable ac c ommodation c an be at any time , up to the e ntr y of judgme nt for posse ssion.

Do ug las v. Krie g sfe ld, 884 A.2d 1109, 1121 (D.C. COA 2005)

Howe ve r , the soone r a r e que st is made , the be tte r .

A re q ue st ma de during the no tic e pe rio d sho uld func tio n to

sta y the filing o f the UD c a se while the la ndlo rd e va lua te s the re q ue st.

SLIDE 15

Requests May Not Even Be Necessary

Co urts ha ve o rde re d L

L ’ s to c e ase e vic tion pr

c e e dings e ve n whe n no spe c ific

a c c o mmo da tio n is re q ue ste d, b ut whe re a c c e ss to se rvic e s ma y a llo w a te na nt to a lte r b e ha vio r o r pinpo int o the r type s o f a c c o mmo da tio ns tha t will a llo w the te na nt to c o mply with the le a se .

Co urt va c a te d a n o rde r e vic ting a re side nt with se ve re mig ra ine he a da c he s

a nd PT SD fro m a fe de ra lly sub sidize d ho using fa c ility, re ma nding the c a se fo r a de te rmina tio n whe the r the ma na g e me nt c o mpa ny a c c o mmo da te d he r disa b ility finding tha t manage me nt kne w of he r

disability and kne w the y c ause d he r disr uptive c onduc t, not pr

viding e nough R.A.
T

he fa c t tha t, “ A te nant doe s not r

e que st a spe c ific or suitable ac c ommodation doe s not r e lie ve a L L fr

m making one .” Co b b le Hill Apts. Co . v. Mc L

a ug hlin, 1999 Ma ss. App. Div. 166 (Ma ss App. Div. 1999)

SLIDE 16

How?

Be st pra c tic e is in writing , b ut this is no t ne c e ssa ry.

T he r e que st should inc lude the following:

A sta te me nt tha t the te na nt ha s a disa b ility.
A de sc riptio n o f the re q ue ste d a c c o mmo da tio n.
A sta te me nt tha t the disa b ility c a n b e a c c o mmo da te d

b y the re q ue st.

SLIDE 17

However, no magic words are necessary.

Prillman v. Unite d Airline s, I nc ., (1997) 53 Ca l. App.

4th 935, sta te s tha t:

“[t]he sta tute do e s no t re q uire the [disa b le d

individua l] to spe a k a ny ma g ic wo rds b e fo re he is sub je c t to its pro te c tio ns. T he [individua l] ne e d no t me ntio n the ADA o r e ve n the te rm ‘ a c c o mmo da tio n.’ ”

SLIDE 18

Some potential pitfalls

Ho w muc h info rma tio n sho uld b e g ive n? Ac c o mmo da tio n re q ue sts ha ve b e e n c o nstrue d a s a n offe r

f se ttle me nt.

SLIDE 19

Part 3

T he I nte ra c tive Pro c e ss

SLIDE 20

Part 3 Overview

1.What happe ns ne xt? 2.De aling with r e que sts for mor e infor mation. 3.What if the r e que ste d ac c ommodation is too bur de nsome ?

SLIDE 21

What Happens Next?

Onc e a re q ue st is ma de , a la ndlo rd ha s a fe w o ptio ns:

gr

ant the re q ue st

de ny the re q ue st
a sk fo r mor

e infor mation

do nothing
if a la ndlo rd fa ils to re spo nd o r de la ys in re spo nding , it c o uld b e

c o nside re d a de nia l o f the re q ue st.

SLIDE 22

Dealing with Requests for More Information

What infor mation is a landlor d e ntitle d to?

I

f a pe rso n’ s disa b ility is o b vio us a nd the ne e d fo r a n a c c o mmo da tio n is r

e adily appar e nt or known, a

la ndlo rd may not r

e que st mor e infor mation.

I

f a pe rso n’ s disa b ility is o b vio us b ut the ne e d fo r a n a c c o mmo da tio n is no t, a la ndlo rd may only ask for

infor mation r e late d to the ne e d for an ac c ommodation, not the disability itse lf.

SLIDE 23

If a Disability Is Not Obvious

I f a n individua l’ s disa b ility is no t o b vio us, the n a la ndlo rd ma y re q ue st “r

e liable disability-r e late d infor mation that:

1) is ne c e ssar

y to de te rmine tha t the pe rso n me e ts the Ac t’ s

de finitio n o f disa b ility . . . 2) de sc r

ibe s the ne e de d ac c ommodation, a nd

3) sho ws the r

e lationship b e twe e n the pe rso n’ s disa b ility a nd the ne e d

fo r the re q ue ste d a c c o mmo da tio n.”

Jo int Sta te me nt o f HUD a nd DOJ, Re a so na b le Ac c o mmo da tio ns Unde r the F

a ir Ho using Ac t

SLIDE 24

Caselaw

Bho g a ita v. Alta mo nte He ig hts Co ndo minium Asso c .,

“Ho using pro vide rs ne e d only the infor

mation ne c e ssar y to appr ise the m of the disability and the de sir e and possible ne e d for an ac c ommodation. Ho using pro vide r is no t e ntitle d to e xtra ne o us

me dic a l info rma tio n.”

T

he c o mple x wa s fo und to ha ve vio la te d F HA in de la ying re spo nse to re q ue st fo r suppo rt a nima l b a se d o n a do c to r’ s le tte r tha t do g a ssiste d re side nt in c o ping with his disa b ility.

L

L ’ s re q ue st fo r irre le va nt a nd intrusive info rma tio n re g a rding a te na nts disa b ility in re spo nse to a re q ue st fo r RA is a c o nstruc tive de nia l o f the re q ue st.

SLIDE 25

Disability Not Obvious (continued)

Ac c o rding the Jo int Sta te me nt, the disa b le d individua l c a n usua lly pro vide the info rma tio n ne c e ssa ry to de te rmine tha t she is disa b le d a c c o rding to the Ac t.

Othe r sour c e s of ve r ific ation inc lude:

pro o f tha t a n individua l is o n SSI
r SSDI
a do c to r o r o the r me dic a l pro fe ssio na l
a pe e r suppo rt g ro up
a no n-me dic a l se rvic e a g e nc y
a re lia b le third pa rty who is in a po sitio n to kno w a b o ut the

individua l’ s disa b ility.

SLIDE 26

Disability Not Obvious (continued)

“I

n mo st c ase s, an individual’ s me dic al re c o rds o r de taile d info rmatio n abo ut the nature o f a pe rso n’ s disability is no t ne c e ssary fo r this inquiry.”

Re pe ate d r e que sts fo r mo re de ta ile d info rma tio n, whe n

the re q ue sto r a lre a dy ha s suffic ie nt info rma tio n to e va lua te the re q ue st, ha ve b e e n c o nstrue d a s a de nia l

f the re q ue st.
S

e e Bho g aita v. Altamo nte He ig hts Co ndo minium Ass’ n, I nc ., 765 F .3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2014).

SLIDE 27

What if a request is too burdensome?

E ve n if the re q ue st impose s an e xc e ssive burde n, a la ndlo rd is re q uire d to e ngage in the inte r

ac tive pr

c e ss in o rde r to de te rmine if a diffe r

e nt, le ss bur de nsome a c c o mmo da tio n wo uld suffic e .

SLIDE 28

Landlord’s Failure to Respond to RA Request

1. Not a n a b so lute de fe nse

2. De la y in o ffe ring R.A. is le ft to tr

ie r

f fac t

3. L L ’s bur de n. “I

f a L L is ske ptic a l o f a te na nt’ s a lle g e d disa b ility to pro vide a n a c c o mmo da tio n, it is inc umb e nt upo n L L to re q ue st a c c o mmo da tio n do c ume nta tio n o r

pe n a dia lo g ue .”

Aub urn Wo o ds 121 Ca l. App.

SLIDE 29

Part 4

Using the De fe nse to De fe a t a n Unla wful De ta ine r

SLIDE 30

Part 4 Overview

1.What must be pr

ve n to pr

e vail at tr ial 2.Ne c e ssity 3.Re asonable ne ss 4.Jur y Instr uc tions 5.Additional Str ate gie s 6.T ips for spe c ific type s of c ase s

SLIDE 31

What must be proven to prevail at trial

I n o rde r fo r the de fe nse to b e suc c e ssful, the te na nt must sho w: 1) she has a disability 2) the landlor

d kne w o f the disa b ility

3) the ac c ommodation is ne c e ssar

y

4) the la ndlo rd r

e fuse d to gr ant the ac c ommodation

SLIDE 32

Necessity

An a c c o mmo da tio n is “ ne c e ssar

y” whe n a n a n

e xc e ptio n to a r

ule , polic y or pr ac tic e is ne e de d in

rde r to a ffo rd a disa b le d pe rso n a n e qual
ppor

tunity to use a nd e njo y the ho using o f his o r

he r c ho ic e .

T

he re must b e a ne xus b e twe e n the re q ue ste d a c c o mmo da tio n a nd the individua l’ s disa b ility.

SLIDE 33

Necessity (continued)

“Witho ut a c ausal link b e twe e n [a la ndlo rd’ s] po lic y a nd [a te na nt’ s] injury, the re c a n b e no o b lig a tio n o n the pa rt o f [la ndlo rds] to ma ke a re a so na b le a c c o mmo da tio n.”

U.S

. v. Califo rnia Mo bile Ho me Park Manag e me nt Co ., (1997 9th Cir.) 107 F .3d 1374, 1381.

Ho we ve r, a c c o mmo da tio ns must b e ma de fo r the

pr ac tic al impac ts of a disability, no t just the physic a l

ma nife sta tio ns o f the disa b ility itse lf.

S

e e U.S . Airways v. Barne tt, (2002) 535 U.S. 391.

SLIDE 34

Necessity (continued)

T his c a n b e pro ve n b y “sho wing tha t the de sire d a c c o mmo da tio n will affir

mative ly e nhanc e a disable d [te nant’s] quality of life b y a me lio ra ting the

e ffe c ts o f the disa b ility.”

Dadian v. Villag e o f Wilme tte , 269 F

.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2001).

SLIDE 35

Reasonableness

A re q ue ste d a c c o mmo da tio n is not r

e asonable if it

c a use s a n undue financ ial o r administr

ative bur de n,

r if it funda me nta lly a lte rs the na ture o f the pro g ra m.
Co urts will o fte n c o nside r:
the be ne fits to the te nant v. c osts to the landlor

d

the financ ial r

e sour c e s o f the la ndlo rd

whe the r a le ss e xpe nsive alte r

native is a va ila b le

Ofte n, the re will b e so me fina nc ia l b urde n o r c o st pla c e d o n the la ndlo rd.

SLIDE 36

Reasonableness (continued)

Whose bur de n is it?

Gie ble r po ints o ut tha t the re a re two, slightly diffe r

e nt analyse s,

ne b o rro we d fro m the Re ha b ilita tio n Ac t c o nte xt a nd the o the r

fro m the ADA e mplo yme nt c o nte xt.

Unde r e a c h, ho we ve r, the initial bur

de n is plac e d on the r e que stor to sho w tha t a c c o mmo da tio n is e ithe r po ssib le o r

re a so na b le in the run o f c a se s.

T

he bur

de n the n shifts to the o the r pa rty to sho w the

a c c o mmo da tio n is unre a so na b le o r c a use undue ha rdship.

SLIDE 37

Tips for Specific Types of Cases

Hoar ding

Ho a rding I

s a disa b ility a s de fine d in the DSM5 ma nua l.

A la ndlo rd c a n b e re q uire d to g ive a te na nt time

to c le an the unit or ge t he lp to c le an the unit e ve n

if a he a lth o r sa fe ty c o de vio la tio n ha s b e e n issue d.

Do ug las v. Krie g sfe ld Co rp., 884 A.2d 1109 (D.C. App. 2005)

SLIDE 38

Tips for Specific Types of Cases (continued)

Vio le nc e o r Nuisa nc e Po st No tic e Co nduc t

a . Obje c t. I rre le va nt a s no t c o nta ine d in the no tic e b . I f Pla intiff se e ks to ame nd to add alle gations, o b je c t b e c a use it ra ise s a ne w c a use o f a c tio n a nd no t b a se d o n sa me “g e ne ra l se t o f fa c ts” o f the no tic e o r c o mpla int. c . I f Gr

ante d, a sk fo r c o ntinua nc e to c o nduc t disc o ve ry.

I f the re is a plan in pla c e to mitigate the alle ge d be havior, a la ndlo rd is still re q uire d to a tte mpt a n I f ra ise d b y o the r side b e pre pa re d to c o unte r:

SLIDE 39

Additional Strategies

F ile a Motion for

Summar y Judgme nt fo r fa iling to

e ng a g e in the inte ra c tive pro c e ss. F ile a n affir

mative c ase for disc r imination in sta te o r

fe de ra l c o urt a nd re q ue st a sta y o f the UD a c tio n.

SLIDE 40

Jury Instructions

Se e c o urse ma te ria ls.

SLIDE 41

Contact Info

Ca ry Go ld - c g o ld@ sfb a r.o rg E rin K a ta ya ma – e ka ta ya ma @ sfb a r.o rg

SLIDE 42

Practicalities to Think About

Je re my Be rg stro m Se nio r Sta ff Atto rne y Sa rg e nt Shrive r Na tio na l Ce nte r fo r Po ve rty L a w Chic a g o , I llino is jb e rg stro m@ po ve rtyla w.o rg 312-368-2677

SLIDE 43

F

e de ra l o r sta te c o urt

F

e de ra l la w / sta te la w / lo c a l o rdina nc e s

Ca lifo rnia F

a ir E mplo yme nt a nd Ho using Ac t

I

n Chic a g o , a te na nt c o uld b e c o ve re d b y fe de ra l la w, I llino is Huma n Rig hts Ac t, Co o k Co unty Huma n Rig hts Ordina nc e , Chic a g o F a ir Ho using Ordina nc e

Co nside r:
Applic a b ility (de finitio n o f “disa b ility” a nd pro hib itio ns)
Pro c e dure (c o mpla int, inve stig a tio n, pro se c utio n)
E

nfo rc e me nt (mo ne ta ry da ma g e s, injunc tive re lie f)

Simulta ne o us c o mpla ints?
So me time s, b ut b e a wa re tha t a n a djudic a te d a ffirma tive de fe nse ma y

pre c lude a n a ffirma tive suit.

SLIDE 44

Pr

e c lusion – a n individua l ma y no t re -litig a te issue s whe n a c o urt ha s re nde re d a

de c isio n.

Cla im pre c lusio n – re s judic a ta
A fe de ra l c o urt will dismiss a c la im tha t is ra ise d o r tha t sho uld ha ve b e e n ra ise d in a

prio r sta te o r fe de ra l c o urt pro c e e ding . 28 U.S.C. § 1738.

F

ina l sta te c o urt judg me nts pre c lude fe de ra l 1983 c la ims, Mig ra v. Warre n City S c ho o l Bo ard o f E duc atio n, 465 U.S. 75, a nd sta te c o urt c a se s a ffirming a dministra tive de c isio ns, Kre me r v. Che mic al Co nstruc tio n Co rpo ratio n, 456 U.S. 461, (1982). Unre vie we d a dmin de c isio ns – mo re c o mplic a te d a na lysis.

I

ssue pre c lusio n – Co lla te ra l e sto ppe l

Pre ve nts re -litig a ting a n issue in a prio r sta te o r fe de ra l c o urt pro c e e ding
Hig hly fa c t-spe c ific ; fo c us is o n whe the r pro c e ss pro vide d a full & fa ir o ppo rtunity to

litig a te a nd whe the r b urde n o f pro o f wa s the sa me . Ge ne ra lly spe a king , fe de ra l c o urts g ive sta te a g e nc ie s the sa me pre c lusive e ffe c t a s sta te c o urts wo uld. Unive rsity o f T e nne sse e v. E llio tt, 478 U.S. 788 (1986), Kre me r a t 481-482.

SLIDE 45

Re pre se nting c lie nts with little insig ht into the ir disa b ility
Be we ll a wa re o f pro fe ssio na l re spo nsib ility (e thic a l) c o nside ra tio ns
T

he se ma y de fine wha t “putting the c lie nt’ s inte re sts first” lo o ks like

Sta y c o nfide nt, b e yo urse lf, g a in trust
Be fo re a sking a c lie nt a b o ut his/ he r o wn disa b ilitie s, e xpla in ho w so me

pe o ple with a disa b ility ma y ha ve a dditio na l de fe nse s, g ive e xa mple s

Co nside r a vo iding the wo rd “disa b ility” a t first, a nd inste a d na ming

spe c ific e xa mple s . F

llo w up with “Ha ve yo u e ve r ha d a ny tre a tme nt o r

dia g no se s o r a nything tha t mig ht he lp pro vide yo u with a de fe nse ? ”

Ask if the c lie nt will a llo w yo u to spe a k with fa mily, se rvic e pro vide rs
Be a wa re o f c o nfide ntia lity la ws; se e k c lie nt’ s e xpre ss pe rmissio n to

disc lo se ; disc lo se a s little a s ne c e ssa ry, e spe c ia lly in file d do c ume nts