938 F.3d 1259
11th Cir.2019Background
- Albert Schaw, a quadriplegic who receives SSDI, applied to Habitat for Humanity (Citrus County), which requires a minimum gross annual income of $10,170 to qualify for a home.
- Schaw’s SSDI equals $9,336/year; he also receives $194/month in food stamps and $100/month in familial support—either source would put him over Habitat’s income threshold.
- Habitat refused to count food stamps (citing HUD guidance) and rejected a notarized letter from Schaw’s father as legally insufficient evidence of continuing support; it proposed a trust or annuity as alternatives.
- Schaw sued under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), asserting (1) failure to make reasonable accommodations (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)) and (2) a disparate-impact claim against SSDI recipients.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Habitat, finding the requested accommodation was not “necessary” (it addressed finances, not disability) and that the disparate-impact claim failed for lack of evidence.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the disparate-impact claim but vacated and remanded the failure-to-accommodate claim for further factfinding on reasonableness, undue burden/fundamental alteration, and whether the accommodation was "necessary" to alleviate effects of Schaw’s disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Habitat’s refusal to count food stamps or familial support was a denial of a "reasonable accommodation" | Schaw: counting alternate income sources is a facially reasonable accommodation—he would meet the same income amount by a different form of support | Habitat: the accommodation is unreasonable / would impose burdens; HUD rules exclude food stamps and a notarized letter is not legally enforceable | Court: Schaw’s request is facially reasonable; remand to determine whether Habitat can prove undue burden or fundamental alteration |
| Whether the requested accommodation was "necessary" to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling | Schaw: his inability to work is an effect of his disability; accepting alternate income would alleviate that effect and afford equal opportunity | Habitat: the accommodation addresses only financial condition, not the disability; no causal link between disability and inability to meet income requirement | Court: an accommodation that alleviates the economic effects of a disability can be "necessary"; remand for factual determination whether Schaw’s financial limits are caused by his disability and whether accommodation is necessary to achieve equal opportunity |
| Whether Habitat’s minimum-income requirement has a disparate impact on SSDI recipients | Schaw: the income threshold disproportionately excludes persons on SSDI and thus has a disparate impact | Habitat: evidence shows SSDI recipients have been approved; plaintiff offered no comparative statistical or other evidence | Court: affirmed dismissal—Schaw failed to present evidence of a significant discriminatory effect or comparative data |
Key Cases Cited
- Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass’n, 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2014) (definition of a "necessary" accommodation and reasonableness balancing)
- Hunt v. Aimco Props., L.P., 814 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2016) (elements of an FHAA failure-to-accommodate claim)
- U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (plaintiff need only show accommodation is facially reasonable; defendant bears undue-hardship burden)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008) (analysis of essential aspects of policies and reasonable-accommodation framework)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (example of permissible accommodation that did not alter essential nature of activity)
- Salute v. Stratford Greens Garden Apartments, 136 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that requiring participation in Section 8 could be an undue burden)
- Giebeler v. M&B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (accommodations may address practical impacts of a disability, not just immediate manifestations)
- Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (disparate-impact framework)
- Oconomowoc Residential Programs v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2002) (balancing benefits and burdens when assessing reasonableness of accommodation)