J. R. Harding v. Orlando Apartments, LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6838
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Harding asserted FHA claims against BHDR for alleged design-and-construction violations at the District, owned by Orlando Apartments in 2009.
- Harding and Williams tested accessibility in 2010; BHDR purchased the District in December 2010.
- Harding alleged BHDR failed to remedy accessibility violations, discriminating against handicapped persons under §3604(f)(1)-(2).
- District court granted BHDR summary judgment; Harding appealed, challenging applicability of §3604(f)(3)(C) outside design/construction.
- Court held design-and-construction guidelines restrictive to design/construction contexts and not applicable to BHDR, which was not involved in design/construction.
- Court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment for BHDR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do §3604(f)(3)(C) guidelines apply outside design/construction? | Harding argues guidelines establish ongoing discrimination by BHDR. | BHDR asserts guidelines apply only during design/construction, not to subsequent owners. | Guidelines do not apply outside design/construction; discrimination claims fail. |
| Can a subsequent owner be liable under §3604(f)(1)-(2) for design/construction violations? | BHDR’s failure to remedy violations constitutes ongoing discrimination. | Liability cannot be premised on another party’s design/construction failures. | No liability for BHDR under §3604(f)(1)-(2) based on non-involved design/construction. |
| Is HUD guidance entitled to deference in testing §3604(f)(3) scope? | HUD guidance should support Harding’s broader reading. | Independent statutory reading yields same conclusion; HUD guidance aligns with it. | HUD guidance does not alter the conclusion; guidelines are limited to design/construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000) (statutory interpretation starting with text; en banc reference)
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court 2001) (give effect to every clause and word of a statute)
- Parks v. City of Warner Robins, 43 F.3d 609 (11th Cir. 1995) (affirm on any adequate ground in summary judgment review)
- Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (habitat vs availability distinction under FHA)
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court 2003) (HUD interpretations ordinarily entitled to deference)