ShareA Michigan court has considered whether a landlord had to make an accommodation for a prospective tenant who was not financially qualified for a vacancy but claimed that this was due to a disability.
Freedom Square (“Apartment Complex”) was a tax-subsidized apartment building that, pursuant to an agreement with the state, had set aside a number of units for senior citizens and/or older individuals with a disability. The Complex was managed by Piper Realty and Susan Gaines (“Property Manager”) served as the Complex’s manager. The Complex had a specific set of criteria that it used in reviewing applicants, including obtaining credit reports and performing criminal background checks.
David Sutton, Jr. (“Applicant”) was a 56 year-old African American who claimed to suffer a “mobile impairment” which made it difficult for him to walk, see, and work. The Applicant applied for one of the specially reserved apartments in the Complex. The Property Manager received his application and investigated whether the Applicant met the Complex’s criteria. Gaines had a credit score of 67 and also owed $5,000 to his prior landlord, which did not meet the Complex’s criteria of a 160 credit score.
The Property Manager sent the Applicant a letter rejecting his application. The Applicant wrote back, requesting that the Complex waive the credit requirements as an “accommodation” to his disability, which allegedly made it difficult for him to hold a job. The Applicant offered to pay three month’s rent in advance and also secure a co-signer for his lease. When the Property Manager learned that the Applicant was challenging his rejection, she then ordered a criminal background check. This report revealed convictions for insurance fraud and a felony conviction for false report of a stolen vehicle.
The Property Manager refused to make an accommodation for the Applicant. While Complex’s criteria also made a felony conviction a basis for rejecting an application, the Property Manager continued to base her rejection solely on the Applicant’s credit history. Subsequently, the Property Manager also learned that the Applicant had a conviction for bankruptcy fraud and had spent time in prison.
The Applicant filed a lawsuit alleging that the Complex discriminated against him both on the basis of race and his disability. He alleged violations of both the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Complex filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the motion to dismiss the Applicant’s lawsuit. The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate on the “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental…[of a] dwelling” on the basis of a disability or race, among other things. The ADA prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of disability, with “a place of public accommodation” defined as places such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, museums, and convention centers.
The court rejected the Applicant’s FHA allegations because his requested accommodation was not reasonable. The FHA requires an accommodation by a landlord if a tenant’s requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary to give disabled individuals the ability to use and enjoy a dwelling. A “reasonable” accommodation is one that does not require a fundamental alteration of a program or impose undue financial burden on a landlord.
Here, the Applicant’s credit history posed a risk of imposing a financial burden on the Complex, especially considering that he still owed his prior landlord money. The court also found that requiring such an accommodation would require the Complex to overlook the credit requirement for other applicants, causing financial instability at the Complex. The court also stated that the requested accommodation was really about the Tenant’s own financial condition and had nothing to do with his alleged disability. Because his requested accommodation was not reasonable, the court dismissed the Applicant’s lawsuit.
The court also rejected the race discrimination and ADA allegations. First, the court found that the Property Manager had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting the Applicant because of his credit history and so the Applicant could not make sufficient allegations to support his race discrimination claims. Second, the ADA had no application to the Complex because it was a residential facility, not a place of public accommodation. Therefore, the court dismissed the Applicant’s lawsuit.
Sutton v. Freedom Square Ltd., No. 07-14897, 2008 WL 4601372 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2008). [This is a citation to a Westlaw document. Westlaw is a subscription, online legal research service. If an official reporter citation should become available for this case, the citation will be updated to reflect this information].