ANTONELLI v. THE GLOUCESTER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
1:17-cv-05313
D.N.J.Jan 16, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Danielle Antonelli, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Gloucester County Housing Authority and several officials alleging ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection), and Fair Housing Act violations arising from a May 13, 2015 Housing Authority Fair Hearing decision.
- The Authority found Antonelli was over‑subsidized: she had been issued a three‑bedroom Section 8 voucher after stating custody of three children, but at the time only had custody of one child; custody of an older child was later obtained in April 2015.
- The Authority concluded Antonelli misrepresented household composition and could be back‑charged for subsidy differences between unit sizes; the letter was a final determination and identified hearing officers/officials.
- Antonelli claims her housing was "downgraded," resulting in financial loss (alleged $4,272) and seeks $174,272 in damages for disability discrimination and related harms.
- The complaint did not plead facts connecting the Authority’s decision to discriminatory animus or a failure to accommodate her disability, nor did it target individual defendants with specific conduct allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II ADA claim stated | Antonelli: Authority’s decision discriminated/denied benefits because she is disabled | Authority: Determination addressed household eligibility, not disability; no failure to accommodate alleged | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege facts tying exclusion/denial to disability |
| Whether Title III ADA claim stated | Antonelli: public‑accommodation discrimination based on disability | Authority: Decision was administrative re subsidy, not denial of access or services because of disability | Dismissed — no facts showing discrimination under Title III |
| Whether Rehabilitation Act claim stated | Antonelli: HUD program discrimination due to disability | Authority: No allegation the program’s federal funding or policies were applied because of disability | Dismissed — no plausible causal link to disability alleged |
| Whether Equal Protection / § 1983 claim stated | Antonelli: disparate treatment based on disability | Authority: Classification not suspect; decision rationally related to legitimate interest (administering housing rules); no equal‑protection animus pleaded | Dismissed — rational‑basis scrutiny met or no discrimination pled |
| Whether Fair Housing Act claim stated | Antonelli: discrimination/interference with benefits because of disability; failure to accommodate/modifiy | Authority: Decision concerns eligibility misrepresentation, not refusal to accommodate or discriminatory intent | Dismissed — no allegations of discriminatory animus or failure to accommodate |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints construed liberally)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions insufficient; facial plausibility standard)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se pleadings judged under liberal standard)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (pleading standard and Rule 12(b)(6) framework)
- Chisolm v. McManimon, 275 F.3d 315 (Title II auxiliary aids/consideration of request)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (equal protection rational‑basis analysis for disability)
- Lavia v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 224 F.3d 190 (disability not a suspect class under Equal Protection)