46 F.4th 1268
11th Cir.2022Background
- Sailboat Bend is a for‑profit sober‑living home in Fort Lauderdale that historically housed up to 11 unrelated residents recovering from addiction; owners are Carl and Iryna Bergstrom.
- Beginning in 2012 the City cited the property for Building and Fire Code violations (including unpermitted work and a question about the property’s "use"), and later determined the home was a Rooming House or Residential Board & Care occupancy, which triggers sprinkler and other fire‑safety requirements.
- To avoid costly retrofits (sprinkler system estimated $30k–$40k), Sailboat Bend reduced occupancy to three and removed its listing from a recovery‑home certification list so it could qualify as a single‑family dwelling.
- In 2018 the City adopted a Zoning Ordinance that generally limits unrelated persons in residential zones to three, but expressly allows licensed "Community Residences" for persons with disabilities to house more than three subject to conditions (e.g., licensing, 1,000‑foot spacing).
- Sailboat Bend sued the City under the Fair Housing Act and Title II of the ADA, asserting (1) the Zoning Ordinance is facially discriminatory against the disabled, (2) the City unlawfully denied a requested reasonable accommodation (waiver of sprinkler requirement), and (3) the City intentionally discriminated in enforcement of the Codes.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Zoning Ordinance facially discriminates against people with disabilities under the FHA/ADA | Ordinance imposes conditions on Community Residences that are not imposed on ordinary households, so it is discriminatory | Ordinance treats disabled persons more favorably: it is the only category allowed to house more than three unrelated persons in residential zones (subject to conditions) | No facial discrimination: disabled persons are treated better, so plaintiffs fail to show disparate treatment |
| Whether City unlawfully denied reasonable accommodation (waiver of sprinkler requirement) | Waiver was necessary because residents cannot afford higher rent and their disabilities cause inability to pay | No evidence that residents’ disabilities caused inability to pay; accommodation not necessary | Denial lawful: plaintiffs failed to show the requested accommodation was "necessary" (no causal link established) |
| Whether City intentionally discriminated in enforcement of Building/Fire Codes | Enforcement actions and certain requests (e.g., removing Sailboat Bend from FARR list) show animus toward disabled residents | Enforcement was neutral and driven by the property’s classification/use and safety requirements, not disability | No intentional discrimination: circumstantial evidence insufficient to show disability played a role in enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) ("discriminate against" means treat worse than similarly situated)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) ("discriminate against" involves injurious distinctions in treatment)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) (disparate‑treatment framework and requirement of unequal treatment)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (factors for proving discriminatory intent)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial evidence discrimination claims)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008) (FHA disparate‑treatment analysis in zoning context)
- Schaw v. Habitat for Humanity of Citrus County, Inc., 938 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019) (necessity element; causal link between disability and need for accommodation)