A Connecticut federal district court has considered whether a tenant's lawsuit for discrimination against her landlord, who was exempt from the state's fair housing laws, the federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), could proceed under the federal Rehabilitation Act ("Act").
Carole A. Robinson, II ("Tenant") leased an apartment from Carole and Robert Gorman ("Landlords"). The Landlords' building contained two units and the Landlords lived in one of the units. The Tenant suffered from a disability (as defined in the ADA), and so the Landlords received federal housing assistance payments for the Tenant's rent. The Tenant sought permission to have a live-in aide to help her with her disability. The Landlords denied this request, and the Tenant filed a lawsuit in Connecticut state court alleging violations of the state's fair housing laws, FHA, ADA, and the Act, claiming that the live-in aide was a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The state court dismissed the state fair housing, FHA, and ADA allegations, but allowed the allegations made under the Act to remain. The Landlords then removed the case to federal court, and filed a motion to dismiss the Act claim.
The United States District Court, Connecticut, allowed the Tenant's lawsuit to proceed. The court first reviewed the history of this lawsuit before the state court. The FHA, designed to eliminate discrimination from the housing marketplace, contains a number of exceptions, including when the owner lives on the premises and the dwelling contains "no more than four families living independently of each other." The state's fair housing laws contain a similar exception, although this exception was limited to two families, rather than four. Since the building was an owner-occupied building with two units, the state court had properly dismissed the fair housing allegations.
The purpose of the ADA is to assure equal access and services for handicapped individuals, and so the ADA bars discrimination against handicapped individuals. The ADA is concerned with discrimination in "places of public accommodation," like a hotel or inn, not residential housing. Since the Landlords' premises were privately-owned residential housing and not a place of public accommodation, the ADA did not apply to the Landlords' premises. Thus, the state court had correctly dismissed the ADA allegations as well.
The court next considered the motion to dismiss the claim under the Act. The Act provides that "no otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving" federal funding. The Landlords argued that the Tenant was not disabled and that they were exempt from the Act because they were exempt under the FHA. The court rejected both of these arguments. The court first ruled that there was no support for the Landlords' argument that an exemption under the FHA meant an exemption under the Act. Indeed, the Landlords had cited no case or statute in support of this argument. The court next considered the Landlords' argument that the Tenant did not suffer from a disability. To make allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, a person must allege that the person is disabled within the meaning of the Act, that the person is otherwise qualified to participate in the activity, the activity receives federal financial support, and the person was subject to discrimination because of the person's handicap. The court ruled that the Tenant had made sufficient allegations to survive a motion to dismiss, and so the lawsuit was allowed to proceed.
Robinson v. Gorman, 145 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Conn. 2001).