Batista v. Cooperativa De Vivienda Jardines De San Ignacio
776 F.3d 38
1st Cir.2015Background
- Priscilla Batista lived since 1983 in a three‑bedroom apartment in a San Juan housing cooperative and for years received Section 8 rental subsidy.
- A 2007 management review found her unit "over‑housed" (larger than her subsidy allowed); the cooperative informed her she must transfer to a two‑bed unit to keep Section 8 or pay market rent to remain.
- Batista requested a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, claiming disabilities required extra rooms and that the offered two‑bed unit was too noisy; the cooperative sought guidance from the Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority and HUD and then denied the request.
- Batista filed an administrative HUD complaint (which found for the cooperative) and then sued the cooperative and board members in federal court alleging failure to accommodate, disparate treatment (disability discrimination), and retaliation.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on accommodation and disparate treatment claims and dismissed retaliation; the First Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the retaliation claim for merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate under FHA | Batista: cooperative must let her keep unit with Section 8 subsidy as a disability accommodation (needs rooms for therapy/reading; noise sensitivity) | Cooperative: Section 8 administration and subsidy decisions are made by Housing Finance Authority, not the private landlord; accommodation requiring subsidy reinstatement is not a reasonable obligation for landlord | Affirmed for defendants — requested accommodation (continuing subsidy to cover rent) not a reasonable accommodation the cooperative could be compelled to provide |
| Disparate treatment (disability‑based) | Batista: multiple adverse actions (collection attempts, voting denial, eviction threats) show discrimination tied to her disability | Cooperative: actions were not motivated by disability; plaintiff alleges intent to eliminate Section 8 beneficiaries, not hostility to disability | Affirmed for defendants — no direct or indirect evidence linking actions to disability discrimination |
| Retaliation under FHA (§3617) | Batista: cooperative retaliated after she prevailed in HUD proceeding (collection actions, denial of accommodation) | Cooperative: District Court treated claim as effort to enforce HUD consent order (jurisdictional issue) | Reversed dismissal — First Circuit held district court has jurisdiction over private retaliation claim under §3617 and remanded for merits review |
| Proper target of relief (who controls Section 8) | Batista: sued cooperative to secure subsidy continuation | Cooperative: subsidy decisions are made by administering agency; cooperative is not the proper party to reinstate Section 8 | Court: cooperative not responsible for reinstating Section 8; plaintiff did not challenge the administering agency's decision in this suit, so accommodation claim fails as framed |
Key Cases Cited
- Geshke v. Crocs, Inc., 740 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2014) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Astralis Condo. Ass'n v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010) (FHA failure‑to‑accommodate framework; handicap knowledge)
- Howard v. City of Beavercreek, 276 F.3d 802 (6th Cir. 2002) (reasonableness of accommodation depends on burden and fundamental alteration analysis)
- Salute v. Stratford Greens Garden Apartments, 136 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 1998) (discussing limits of FHA relief where poverty—not owner policy—prevents tenant from paying rent)
- Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard for disparate‑treatment proof: direct or indirect evidence of discriminatory intent)
- Colvin v. Housing Authority of City of Sarasota, Fla., 71 F.3d 864 (11th Cir. 1996) (recognizing right to challenge termination of Section 8 assistance)