Brockton Fire Department v. St. Mary Broad Street, LLC
181 F. Supp. 3d 155
D. Mass.2016Background
- A kitchen fire occurred at a sober house on Copeland Street in Brockton, MA; Brockton Fire Department sued in state housing court to enforce Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 148, § 26H (the Sprinkler Law).
- Defendants (St. Mary Broad Street, LLC and Brian Bernenberg) removed to federal court invoking federal housing laws; the case was stayed in 2015 pending proposed legislative amendments that never passed.
- The Sprinkler Law mandates automatic sprinklers in lodging/boarding houses that house six or more unrelated persons; Brockton had accepted the statute in 1988.
- The sober home houses more than six unrelated residents and is not state-licensed; residents are recovering alcoholics/drug addicts who qualify as persons with disabilities under the Massachusetts Zoning Act (MZA).
- The MZA forbids local health and safety laws from discriminating against disabled persons by imposing requirements on congregate living arrangements that are not imposed on families or similar-sized groups.
- Defendants asserted (and court agreed) that applying the Sprinkler Law to this sober home would be facially discriminatory under the MZA; plaintiffs relied on an Appeals Court decision upholding Sprinkler Law application to sober homes but that decision did not consider federal fair housing implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sprinkler Law can be enforced against the sober home | Sprinkler Law applies to lodging/boarding houses and thus to the sober home | MZA prohibits discriminatory application of health and safety laws to group homes for disabled persons | Enforcement barred: MZA precludes applying Sprinkler Law here |
| Whether sober-home residents qualify as "disabled persons" under MZA | Not disputed; plaintiffs did not contest disability status | Residents are disabled (recovering addicts) and protected by MZA | Court: residents qualify as disabled persons under precedent |
| Whether Massachusetts Sober Hous. Corp. controls | Plaintiffs cite Appeals Court upholding Sprinkler Law against a sober home | Defendants note that that decision did not address FHA/MZA discrimination issues | Court: MSHC is not dispositive because it did not consider FHA/MZA implications; MZA controls here |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. v. Town of Framingham, 752 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D. Mass. 2010) (defines disability to include recovering drug addicts/alcoholics and discusses FHA accommodations)
- Massachusetts Sober Hous. Corp. v. Automatic Sprinkler Appeals Bd., 850 N.E.2d 585 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (upheld Sprinkler Appeals Board’s view that sober homes fit Sprinkler Law but did not address FHA/MZA issues)