Share
In Proviso Association of Retarded Citizens v. Village of Westchester, a Federal Distrist Court in Illinois addressed "reasonable accommodations" under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The court found that the Village failed to make a reasonable accommodation by waiving a sprinkler system requirement in a group home occupied by residents who were able to perform fire drills within an acceptable amount of time.
Proviso Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) operated a group home in the Village of Westchester (Village). Each of PARC's six residents was able bodied, could walk, and had normal eyesight and hearing. PARC conducted over 20 unannounced fire drills at the home. In each case, the residents evacuated the building in three minutes or less without assistance. At all times when residents were in the home, at least one PARC supervisor was present.
Initially, the home was zoned R-3 "Residential Use." In early 1995, PARC was informed that the intended use could cause reclassification to 1-2 "Institutional Use," or R-2 "Residential Use." The Village building code required 1-2 and R-2 to have sprinkler systems. In February 1995, PARC appeared before the Village Board to request a denial of the reclassification or, alternatively, a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The Village denied both requests. In June 1995, PARC presented a written request for a reasonable accommodation. In August 1995, this request was denied. PARC sued the Village for violations of the FHA.
The district court noted that the FHA prohibits housing discrimination against the handicapped. The court found each resident was handicapped under the FHA. PARC alleged that the Village failed to make a reasonable accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 3604. The court defined reasonable accommodation as "changing some rule that is generally applicable so as to make its burden less onerous on the handicapped individual." It noted that accommodations must be "reasonable and necessary."
The district court found that reasonableness is assessed by "weighing the cost/burden to the defendant against the benefit to the plaintiff." An accommodation is reasonable "when it imposes no undue financial or administrative hardship on the defendant and when it does not undermine the basic purpose of the requirement." The Village presented no evidence that it would suffer any hardship or increased risk by waiving the requirement. Also, PARC had installed fire and smoke alarm systems in the building that were linked directly to the fire station. The savings in foregoing new sprinklers was between $20,000 and $30,000. The court thus concluded that the waiver would not undermine the purposes of the requirement and that the benefit to PARC outweighed the minimal burden to the Village.
The district court found that an accommodation must be necessary "to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The court rejected the Village's contention that it treated plaintiffs in the same manner as non-disabled adults living in groups. The State Fire Marshall provided that small board and care homes with eight or fewer residents do not need a sprinkler system as long as they have a prompt evacuation capability. The court noted that the home was well equipped with safety features and that the residents were properly trained in safety drills. It concluded that the waiver of the sprinkler requirement was a necessary accommodation to ensure plaintiffs could have an equal opportunity for housing.
Proviso Association of Retarded Citizens v. Village of Westchester 914 F. Supp. 1555 (N.D. Ill. 1996).