Barbara Moody v. Harry Gongloff
687 F. App'x 496
6th Cir.2017Background
- Moody, a Section 8 recipient, requested a reasonable accommodation to move to a single-story unit because of a claimed medical need.
- Housing authority received an anonymous complaint that Moody’s electricity had been turned off, which could jeopardize her Section 8 benefits.
- Moody missed multiple scheduled meetings, failed to provide requested documentation timely, and left her unit without notifying the authority; the authority verified utilities were restored only after independent inquiries.
- The housing authority conditioned approval of the move on a landlord lease release and proof utilities were restored; it eventually approved the transfer about 87 days after receiving Moody’s doctor’s note.
- Moody sued under the Fair Housing Act alleging an unreasonable delay in granting a reasonable accommodation; the jury returned a verdict for the housing authority.
- On appeal Moody argued the district court erred by refusing her proposed jury instruction that undue or indeterminate delay constitutes a denial of an accommodation request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should have instructed the jury that undue or indeterminate delay in responding to an accommodation request may constitute a denial under the FHA | Moody: A housing provider’s failure to promptly grant or an undue delay in deciding an accommodation request violates the FHA and can be treated as a denial | Housing authority: No duty to grant or immediately decide; delays were justified and partly caused by Moody’s own failures to cooperate | Court: No abuse of discretion in refusing the instruction because Moody did not show unreasonable delay; much delay was caused by her and the authority used time to verify utility restoration |
| Whether the omitted instruction was a correct statement of law | Moody: Sixth Circuit recognizes that unreasonable delay can amount to a denial | Authority: Duty to respond is not identical to duty to grant immediately; instruction only warranted if evidence of unreasonable delay exists | Court: Questionable whether instruction was a correct, stand‑alone statement of law but unnecessary here because jury could not find delay unreasonable |
| Whether the instruction was covered by other instructions | Moody: Needed express instruction on delay-as-denial | Authority: Other instructions and evidence addressed reasonableness and accommodation duties | Court: Instruction not required because issues of reasonableness were for the jury and evidence didn’t support unreasonable delay finding |
| Whether refusal impaired Moody’s theory of the case | Moody: Without instruction jury would not be able to consider delay as a denial | Authority: Moody caused much delay and authority acted to verify utilities; jury could reasonably conclude delay was not unreasonable | Court: Failure to give instruction did not impair Moody’s theory because evidence could not support a finding of unreasonable delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Fencorp Co. v. Ohio Ky. Oil Corp., 675 F.3d 933 (6th Cir.) (standard of review for refusal to give requested jury instructions)
- Morrison v. B. Braun Med. Inc., 663 F.3d 251 (6th Cir.) (requirements for when refusal to give an instruction is an abuse of discretion)
- Tuttle v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 474 F.3d 307 (6th Cir.) (plaintiff must show delay was unreasonable to prevail on denial-by-delay theory)
- Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer, 415 F. App’x 617 (6th Cir.) (recognizes that unreasonable delay in responding to accommodation requests may amount to a denial)