A.B. ex rel. Kehoe v. Housing Authority of South Bend, 498 F. App'x 620

A.B., a minor, lived with his mother Autumn Oliver in federally subsidized public housing in South Bend, Indiana.
Oliver received an eviction notice from the Housing Authority after being arrested for cocaine possession, under a lease one-strike policy prohibiting criminal activity on the premises.
The lease, executed in 2005, allows immediate eviction for drug-related criminal activity and lists A.B. as a household member.
Oliver was arrested February 28, 2011; the eviction notice was issued March 22, 2011 before any conviction, and she pled guilty on April 13, 2011 and entered a substance-abuse program.
The Housing Authority proceeded with eviction despite Oliver’s entry into rehab; A.B. filed suit asserting federal and state-law violations through his grandmother as next friend.
The district court dismissed federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice; on appeal, the court affirmed, holding Oliver was not disabled at the relevant time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Oliver a current drug user, thus not disabled under ADA/Rehabilitation Act/FHA?	Oliver was a recovering addict in rehab and thus a disabled person.	Oliver’s drug use within weeks of eviction shows ongoing use; she was not disabled.	Oliver was not disabled; she was a current drug user at eviction notice.
Did AB.'s claims allege discriminatory intent to support a class-of-one equal protection claim?	Housing Authority’s actions were pretextual and discriminated against AB.'s mother as a handicapped individual.	Allegations are conclusory and fail to show discriminatory intent or similarly situated comparators.	Discrimination claims failed for lack of adequately pleaded discriminatory intent.

Mauerhan v. Wagner Corp., 649 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2011) (defines 'current drug user' for disability determination)
Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare Sys., Ltd., 176 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 1999) (limits on disability status for drug users under ADA/Rehabilitation Act/FHA)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (requires plausible pleadings; rejects conclusory allegations)
Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) (discrimination claims require plausible facts, not mere legal conclusions)
LaBella Winnetka, Inc. v. Vill. of Winnetka, 628 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2010) (class-of-one equal protection pleading requirements)
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (use of 'disability' concept across ADA and FHA)
Stein v. Ashcroft, 284 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2002) (reliance on disability framework in housing cases)
Dadian v. Vill. of Wilmette, 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001) (statutory interpretation in disability claims)