891 F.3d 274
7th Cir.2018Background
- Holly Geraci, a Union Square condo owner, sought a reasonable accommodation after an elevator incident and was diagnosed by her treating psychologist with PTSD.
- Union Square denied the accommodation; Geraci sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) alleging failure to accommodate (§ 3604) and retaliation (§ 3617).
- At trial Union Square presented testimony from a court-ordered Rule 35 psychiatrist who disputed the PTSD diagnosis and diagnosed different mental conditions.
- The jury asked during deliberations whether they needed to decide all elements if they found Geraci was not handicapped; the court referred them to its instructions; the jury returned a verdict for Union Square.
- On appeal Geraci challenged: (1) the jury instruction that she must prove handicap to prevail on a § 3617 retaliation claim, and (2) admission of the defendant’s expert testimony disputing her claimed mental impairment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff must prove she is handicapped to prevail on an FHA retaliation (§ 3617) claim | Geraci contends the instruction requiring proof of handicap was erroneous | Union Square argued its communications were non-retaliatory and within management rights; the court also noted plaintiff’s burden | Affirmed — court found no triable retaliation issue because communications were factual, public, and not objectively coercive or intimidating |
| Whether defendant may present expert testimony to dispute plaintiff's claimed handicap | Geraci argued defense should be limited to arguing as a matter of law that her condition is not an impairment | Union Square argued it has the right to rebut the plaintiff’s element by expert evidence | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; defendant may use expert testimony to disprove plaintiff’s burden of proving a handicap |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation claims require an objective, reasonable-person perspective)
- Stuhlmacher v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 774 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings and expert testimony)
- Schneiker v. Fortis Ins. Co., 200 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to prove disability under ADA; standards applied similarly under FHA)
- Dadian v. Vill. of Wilmette, 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001) (whether a plaintiff has an impairment is a fact-specific issue for the factfinder)
- Good Shepherd Manor Found., Inc. v. City of Momence, 323 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003) (requirements for reasonable accommodation claims are the same under ADA and FHA)