835 F. Supp. 2d 965
D. Idaho2011Background
- Two related cases were consolidated for proceedings before a single judge in September 2011 regarding sewer-fee increases and FHA claims relating to two assisted care facilities within Hayden Lake RWS District.
- Ordinance 89-2 governs capitalization fees and monthly O&M charges, using Equivalent Residence (ER) as the unit; single-family residence is defined as one ER, with special-use adjustments possible for other uses.
- Haydenview Cottage and By the Lake are privately owned assisted living facilities within the District; Haydenview has eight licensed beds, By the Lake reportedly houses eight to twelve residents.
- District allegedly reclassified these facilities under the ER schedule as non-single-family uses (similar to nursing homes) and sought back payments for capitalization and O&M fees.
- IFHC, a fair housing organization, asserts the District’s actions violated the FHA and sought summary judgment on various FHA theories; the District asserted standing and authority defenses and moved for summary judgment in both cases.
- The court consolidated the cases for all purposes and addressed both the District’s authority under Ordinance 89-2 and FHA claims, issuing partial grants/denials definitional of authority and mixed outcomes on FHA theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to redefine ERs under 89-2 | IFHC and facilities contend Haydenview should remain a single-family residence; By the Lake is a special-use. | District may adjust ER factors for non-single-family uses and reclassify based on substantial change in use. | Haydenview must be treated as a single-family residence; By the Lake may be a special use; District exceeded authority for Haydenview but not for By the Lake. |
| Disparate treatment under FHA | District singled out facilities housing disabled residents, evidence of discriminatory animus. | Treatment based on commercial status, not protected status; no discriminatory motive proven. | No summary judgment on disparate treatment; factual dispute remains as to motive. |
| Disparate impact under FHA | District’s rate increases will disproportionately impact disabled residents and threaten facility operations. | No proper comparison group; neutral policy with no proven disproportionate impact. | District entitled to summary judgment on disparate impact; IFHC's claim denied. |
| Reasonable accommodation under FHA | Charging rates or back-payments despite disabled residents requires accommodation; denial violates FHA. | Accommodation must be tailored and there must be nexus to disability; not automatically reasonable. | Both sides present disputed facts; no summary judgment on reasonable accommodation. |
| Discriminatory notices or statements and interference under FHA | Demand letters constitute discriminatory notices under FHA §3604(c) and §3617 coercion. | Letters do not pertain to sale/rental and thus not prohibited by §3604(c). | District entitled to judgment as a matter of law on discriminatory notices; §3604(c) not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (organizational standing under FHA context; concrete injury required)
- Community Services, Inc. v. Wind Gap Municipal Authority, 421 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2005) (disparate treatment/impact analysis in FHA context)
- Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasonable accommodation requires nexus between disability and requested change)
- Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Department, 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003) (disparate impact and protected-class considerations; need for evidence and comparators)
- United States v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co., 107 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir. 1997) (considerations in reasonable accommodations for financial aspects of housing)
- Pfaff v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 88 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1996) (prima facie disparate impact framework; neutral practices must be analyzed with comparators)
- Woodward v. Boise, 490 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (disparate treatment standard and requirement of showing intentional discrimination)
- D. & M. Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Romriell, 138 Idaho 160, 59 P.3d 965 (Idaho 2002) (state-law interpretation of group-residence and single-family dwelling; zoning context)