Providence Behavioral Health v. Grant Rd. Pub. Util. Dist.
902 F.3d 448
5th Cir.2018Background
- Providence Investments owns 12.9 acres in Cypress, TX and sought annexation by Grant Road PUD to obtain water, drainage, and sewage service for a proposed for‑profit psychiatric (youth) facility operated by Providence Behavioral Health.
- Grant Road Board preliminarily approved a 2009–10 proposal but denied a renewed, larger 2014 annexation request after a presentation; the Board gave no explicit statutory reason and unanimously voted to deny annexation.
- Grant Road Board members testified at a bench trial that financial concerns (tax revenue, tax abatements, risk of project failure, utility capacity) and a poorly developed financial presentation motivated the denial; Providence contended the denial was motivated by discrimination against the disabled psychiatric population and community pressure.
- Providence sued under the ADA, FHA, and Texas FHA seeking injunctive relief to compel annexation; the district court held for Grant Road after a three‑day bench trial and denied attorneys’ fees to Grant Road.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and affirmed: it held Grant Road is a local entity (no Eleventh Amendment bar), accepted the district court’s credibility determinations rejecting intentional discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims, and declined to award attorneys’ fees to Grant Road.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity | Grant Road is an instrumentality of Texas and therefore immune | Grant Road is a local government entity funded locally and autonomous | Court: Grant Road is a local entity; Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply |
| Intentional discrimination (ADA/FHA/TFHA) | Board denied annexation because facility would serve disabled psychiatric youth; community pressure and questions about patient population show animus | Denial based on neutral financial concerns (tax base, abatements, infrastructure risk, poor presentation) | Court: Affirmed district court — Providence failed to prove intentional discrimination; credibility findings credited Board testimony |
| Reasonable accommodation (ADA/FHA) | Denial of utilities denied disabled individuals equal opportunity to use/enjoy the dwelling (the facility) | Utility access is unrelated to individual disabilities; denial affects anyone, not just disabled persons | Court: Rejected accommodation claim — utility denial is not a disability‑specific accommodation and does not fall under ADA/FHA reasonable accommodation principles |
| Attorneys’ fees (cross‑appeal) | N/A | Grant Road sought fees arguing Providence’s claims were frivolous | Court: Denied fees — contested bench trial and nonfrivolous litigation; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Coe v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 695 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2012) (bench‑trial standard: factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Guzman v. Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc., 808 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 2015) (clear‑error standard discussion)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Petrohawk Prop., L.P. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P., 689 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2012) (standards for clear error and interpretation of evidence)
- Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Par. Council—President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2002) (Eleventh Amendment immunity principles)
- Clark v. Tarrant Cty., Tex., 798 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1986) (six‑factor test for state instrumentality vs. local entity)
- Hudson v. City of New Orleans, 174 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 1999) (applying Clark factors)
- Williams v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 242 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2001) (source of funds is key factor in immunity analysis)
- Doe v. Columbia‑Brazoria Indep. Sch. Dist., 855 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2017) (elements of intentional‑discrimination claim under ADA/FHA)
- Good Shepherd Manor Found., Inc. v. City of Momence, 323 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003) (denial of utilities affects everyone and is not an FHA/ADA reasonable accommodation)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (standards for awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendants)