988 F.3d 1185
9th Cir.2021Background
- The Howards rented a Los Angeles home on a month-to-month tenancy after an initial one-year lease; HMK (landlord) proposed a new one-year lease with higher rent, which the Howards declined.
- HMK served a 60-day Notice to Quit setting tenancy termination for July 15, 2017; Gale Howard requested extensions as a reasonable accommodation for Glenn Howard’s brain injury and need for 24-hour care.
- HMK granted a short extension but denied later open-ended or long extensions (including a requested January 22, 2018 move-out), characterizing them as unreasonable; doctors’ letters referenced Glenn’s inability to make a long cross-country trip rather than an inability to relocate locally.
- The Howards stayed in the property until January 2018 (partly staying in a motel beforehand); they never presented evidence that local relocation at the termination date would have posed health or safety risks to Glenn.
- The district court granted summary judgment for HMK on FHAA claims; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extending tenancy to Jan. 22, 2018 was a "necessary" reasonable accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) | Howard: extension was necessary to accommodate Glenn’s disability and ensure equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling | HMK: requested extension was convenience tied to a planned cross-country move, not required by Glenn’s medical needs; no causal link to disability | No — plaintiffs failed to show the accommodation was "necessary"; no causal link between disability and need to remain until Jan. 2018 |
| Whether FHAA creates standalone liability for a landlord’s failure to engage in an "interactive process" | Howard: landlord’s failure to engage in interactive process should be independently actionable under FHAA (or at least relieve necessity burden) | HMK: FHAA contains no textual duty to engage in an interactive process; any inquiry belongs to assessing accommodation elements | No — FHAA does not impose independent liability for failing to engage in an interactive process; liability tied to failure to provide a necessary, reasonable accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (necessity requires causal link between disability and accommodation)
- United States v. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir. 1997) (no causal link, accommodation was a convenience)
- Groner v. Golden Gate Gardens Apartments, 250 F.3d 1039 (6th Cir. 2001) (FHAA contains no interactive-process duty)
- Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2002) (declining to import interactive-process requirement into FHAA)
- Snapp v. United Transp. Union, 889 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2018) (no stand-alone interactive-process claim; liability requires denial of an available reasonable accommodation)
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (interactive process in ADA/RA context is tied to whether a reasonable accommodation was possible)
- Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Ctr., Inc. v. Saint George City, 685 F.3d 917 (10th Cir. 2012) (defining "necessary" as "required, indispensable, essential")