349 F. Supp. 3d 645
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- Plaintiff Phyllis Davis, an asthmatic and cancer survivor with multiple-chemical sensitivity, alleges secondhand smoke from neighboring units at Echo Valley Condominiums exacerbated her conditions and sought a ban on smoking throughout the complex as an accommodation.
- Echo Valley Condominium Association governs eight buildings; its bylaws do not prohibit smoking and the interior of individual units are not "common elements." Casa Bella was the property manager for part of the relevant period.
- Davis complained repeatedly to the board and management, sent demand letters to the owners/tenants, kept logs, and a contractor (Mark Clor) installed a fresh-air intake on her unit’s furnace ductwork in March 2017.
- Davis sued under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and also asserted state-law nuisance and breach-of-bylaws claims; several defendants were later dismissed and the smoker moved out.
- The association proposed a complex-wide smoking ban, which required a supermajority vote under Michigan law and failed to pass. Davis moved for summary judgment; defendants cross-moved. Davis also moved to exclude Clor’s testimony, which the court considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis is entitled to reasonable-accommodation relief under FHAA/PWDCRA by obtaining a complex-wide smoking ban | Davis: smoking ban is necessary and reasonable to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy her dwelling given her respiratory disabilities | Defendants: requested accommodation is unreasonable, unlawful or unachievable without amending condominium documents and would impose undue administrative/legal burden | Held: Denied — the requested accommodation (complex-wide ban) is unreasonable and legally infeasible; plaintiffs failed to show it was necessary to afford equal opportunity |
| Whether plaintiff offered adequate evidence linking the requested accommodation to amelioration of her disability | Davis: medical letter says tobacco exposure is detrimental and ban will ameliorate her condition | Defendants: expert or specific evidence is required to show the accommodation would uniquely ameliorate Davis’s condition beyond general discomfort | Held: Davis’s evidence was conclusory and insufficient; she failed to show the ban would specifically provide equal opportunity |
| Admissibility and disclosure of contractor Mark Clor’s testimony about separate HVAC systems | Davis: Clor should be excluded as an expert due to lack of blueprint, late disclosure, and contradiction with others | Defendants: Clor’s testimony is lay testimony from personal observation and was properly disclosed | Held: Denied — Clor’s observations admissible under Rules 602 and 701; not an on-retained expert requiring a report |
| Whether state-law claims (private nuisance and breach of bylaws) survive against remaining defendants | Davis: smoke constituted a nuisance and board breached bylaws by not enforcing prohibitions | Defendants: association and manager lacked control over lawful, in-unit smoking; bylaws do not prohibit smoking and plaintiffs offered no evidence of increased insurance or specific harmful concentration of smoke | Held: Dismissed — nuisance and breach claims fail as a matter of law where association lacked control and plaintiff did not prove actionable interference or bylaw violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass'n, 760 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2014) (elements of reasonable-accommodation claim under federal housing law)
- Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2015) (discussing ‘equal opportunity,’ ‘necessary,’ and ‘reasonable’ components of accommodation analysis)
- Smith & Lee Assocs. v. City of Taylor, 102 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 1996) (framework for assessing reasonable accommodation burdens)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony; contrary evidence for credibility is for cross-examination)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden principles)
- Sholberg v. Truman, 496 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2014) (landlord/owner liability for tenant-created nuisance requires control over property)
- Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 440 Mich. 293 (Mich. 1992) (private nuisance as interference with use and enjoyment of land)