Nikolich v. The Village of Arlington Heights Illinois, 1:10-cv-07395

Plaintiffs allege Arlington Heights discriminated under FHA/ADA/Rehabilitation Act by denying Daveri’s Boeger Place, a 30‑unit permanent supportive housing project for mentally ill individuals.
Daveri sought extensive zoning variances and rezoning to permit Boeger Place, including density, parking, and unit-size reductions.
Plan Commission approved the application; Village Board voted 4–3 against approval, citing zoning concerns (density, parking, proximity to schools, etc.).
The variances were framed as creating affordable housing, not addressing tenants’ disabilities; 16 units could have been built under existing zoning without variances.
No evidence showed the variances or decision were necessary to accommodate disabilities; similar affordable housing exists in Arlington Heights.
Daveri no longer has contracts or funds for Boeger Place, though some financing sources remain available; the court resolves all claims on summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disparate treatment of Boeger Place due to disability	Nikolich asserts bias against disabled residents.	Arlington Heights relied on legitimate zoning concerns, not disability.	Granted summary judgment; no direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
Disparate impact on disabled tenants	Disparate impact theory should apply to Boeger Place denial.	FHA/ADA/RA do not support disparate-impact claim here; policy neutral and specific denial.	Denied/disposed; disparate-impact theory fails under these facts.
Whether accommodation was necessary and reasonable	Defendants failed to engage in required interactive process.	Municipal boards are not required to have an interactive accommodation process.	Denied; interactive process not required for municipalities; no valid accommodation.

Good Shepherd Manor Found., Inc. v. City of Momence, 323 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003) (accommodation not valid where effects not limited to disabled residents)
Hemisphere Bldg. Co. v. Vill. of Richton Park, 171 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 1999) (accommodations cannot override legitimate local regulations when cost impacts broad)
Brandt v. Vill. of Chebanse, 82 F.3d 172 (7th Cir. 1996) (cannot require accommodations that are not necessary; affordable housing not an automatic accommodation)
Metro. Housing Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1977) (adverse comments by residents do not prove discriminatory action)
Wis. Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2006) (disparate-impact analysis requires careful framing; not extended to this zoning context)
Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustments, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2002) (interactive process not mandated for municipalities)