Olsen v. Stark Homes, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13731
2d Cir.2014Background
- Barbara and Donald Olsen Sr., both over 60, bought a mobile home in Glenwood Village, a 55+ community owned by Stark Homes; they sought approval for their 42‑year‑old son Donald Jr. (diagnosed with major depression) to live with them.
- Glenwood's lease allows residents under 55 only if "essential to the physical care or economic support" of a qualifying resident; Stark Homes approved the parents but denied Donald Jr.'s residency request.
- Stark requested a doctor’s letter about Donald Jr.’s disability and ability to be left alone; Dr. Jeffrey Romano sent a January 31, 2008 letter stating Donald Jr. had major depression but "qualifies for independent living" and could live at Glenwood.
- Plaintiffs (the Olsens and Long Island Housing Services (LIHS), a fair‑housing nonprofit) sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and New York Human Rights Law (HRL) for disability discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; LIHS also conducted tester investigations.
- After a bench ruling on motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), the district court dismissed all claims as a matter of law, finding no evidence defendants rejected the application because of Donald Jr.’s disability; the Second Circuit vacated and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Donald Jr. is a "handicapped" person under FHA/HRL | Evidence (testimony, Dr. Romano letter, SSI, hospitalizations) shows major depression substantially limits major life activities (e.g., work) | Dr. Romano's letter said Donald Jr. "qualifies for independent living"; no expert medical proof of substantial limitation | Fact issue for jury; sufficient evidence to survive JMOL for defendants on this element |
| Whether defendants knew or should have known of the handicap | Stark requested a doctor’s note about disability and ability to be left alone; letter referenced "at Glenwood" and diagnosis | Letter’s plain words indicate independent functioning; Stark reasonably interpreted it as not showing need for accommodation | Credibility/interpretation is for jury; evidence sufficed to preclude JMOL for defendants |
| Whether defendants denied housing because of handicap (disparate treatment) | Rejection followed disclosure of disability; statements and selective application of lease give rise to inference of discrimination | Denial based on facially neutral age rule in lease and proper application of lease terms | Jury could find discrimination; district court erred to dismiss as matter of law |
| Reasonable accommodation claim (necessity and reasonableness) | Allowing Donald Jr. to live with parents was necessary and reasonable to afford equal opportunity to use/enjoy dwelling | Plaintiffs failed to prove necessity; evidence could show Donald Jr. could live independently | Triable issue; district court correctly refused plaintiffs’ JMOL but erred dismissing defendants’ JMOL — remand for jury trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (standard for reviewing JMOL and treatment of credibility and inferences)
- Mitchell v. Shane, 350 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2003) (elements of FHA § 3604(f)(1)(B) discrimination claim)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (standing for fair‑housing organizations based on diversion of resources)
- Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2000) (admissibility of public‑office factual findings under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8))
- Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard of review on JMOL appeals)