2:22-cv-00254
N.D. Ala.Jun 28, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Larry Arnold, a 72‑year‑old disabled veteran who receives Section 8 housing assistance, lived at Valley Crest Apartments since 2017.
- After VC3MC purchased Valley Crest in June 2021, the new owner directed management (Elmington) to stop accepting rental subsidies; residents on subsidies were given 90 days to relocate.
- Around November 22, 2021, Arnold requested an exception as a reasonable accommodation so his rent portion could continue to be paid via Section 8 vouchers; Elmington refused the requested accommodation.
- Arnold currently remains in his unit and continues to use Section 8; his rent is $655, of which he pays $119 and JCHA pays the remainder, and his income ($814/month) makes continued tenancy impossible without vouchers.
- Elmington moved for summary judgment arguing the requested accommodation was not reasonable and would impose undue burden; the court denied summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requested accommodation (accepting Section 8 payment) is facially reasonable under the FHA | Arnold: allowing vouchers is a modest accommodation that does not reduce payment and simply changes the payment source | Elmington: policy change to stop subsidies means the request is not reasonable | Court: The request is facially reasonable (low "run of cases" bar) — analogous to Schaw |
| Whether Elmington has shown the accommodation would impose an undue burden | Arnold: Elmington offers no evidence of concrete financial or administrative burden | Elmington: accepting vouchers risks other tenant claims, financial loss, and administrative costs | Court: Elmington failed to provide evidence of undue burden; conjecture and unsupported assertions insufficient |
| Whether the requested accommodation is necessary to afford equal use and enjoyment | Arnold: necessary due to disability and low income | Elmington: did not contest necessity at summary judgment | Court: Elmington conceded necessity; court accepted necessity (and noted Schaw supports conclusion) |
| Whether summary judgment for Elmington is appropriate | Arnold: genuine dispute; Elmington lacks evidence of undue burden | Elmington: entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Court: Denied Elmington's motion for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaw v. Habitat for Humanity of Citrus Cnty., Inc., 938 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019) (facial‑reasonableness standard for FHA accommodations; accepting different form of payment can be reasonable)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (burden‑shifting framework for accommodations and undue hardship/undue burden analysis)
- Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282 (11th Cir. 1997) (undue hardship is an affirmative defense for FHA/ADA defendants to plead and prove)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (analogy on reasonable accommodations in disability context)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards)