176 F. Supp. 3d 112
N.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Step by Step, Inc. (SBS), a New York mental-health nonprofit, bought a former school at 1515 Knox Street (a >2-acre parcel in a single-family zone) intending to create supportive housing, respite/hospital-diversion housing, offices, and mental-health services for persons with serious mental illness.
- In April–May 2015 SBS applied for rezoning to a Planned Development District (PDD); the County and City planning boards recommended disapproval, and on May 28, 2015 the Ogdensburg City Council voted 5–1 to deny the PDD application without issuing written findings.
- Shortly thereafter the City adopted an Adaptive Reuse District (ARD) law (limited to parcels <2 acres) and changed some zoning procedures; SBS alleges these changes and the Council’s conduct were motivated by stigma against its disabled clientele.
- SBS sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), moved for a preliminary injunction directing approval of its PDD, and the City moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The court found SBS had standing, adequately pleaded that its clients are disabled and that the proposed housing is a “dwelling” under the FHA, denied the City’s motion to dismiss, and granted a mandatory preliminary injunction directing the City to approve the PDD subject to ordinary site-plan review (no undue delay or discriminatory conditions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under FHA/ADA | SBS alleged injury from denial of PDD and organizational standing to vindicate members’ rights | City: SBS failed to allege that prospective residents qualify as disabled | Held: SBS has Article III and FHA/organizational standing; motion to dismiss on standing denied |
| Whether prospective residents are "disabled" and proposed use is a "dwelling" | SBS: clients have mental illnesses limiting major life activities; facility is supportive housing (not transient) | City: allegations insufficient to show disability; housing is transient, not a dwelling | Held: Complaint plausibly alleges disabilities and that the facility is a dwelling under FHA/ADA; claim survives pleading challenge |
| Disparate-treatment (intentional discrimination) | SBS: Council acted in response to community bias, departed from procedures, amended ARD to exclude >2-acre sites, and offered no rationale for denial | City: Council followed procedures; comments not specific to SBS; alternative explanations exist | Held: Prima facie case satisfied—sequence of events, public bias, procedural irregularities, and Council’s failure to articulate reasons support likelihood of intentional discrimination; plaintiff likely to succeed |
| Preliminary injunction / irreparable harm | SBS: denial prevents provision of housing/services, causes imminent harm to clients and to SBS’s mission; monetary damages inadequate | City: interest in enforcing zoning and procedure; no proof injunction necessary | Held: SBS showed irreparable harm, balance of hardships and public interest favor injunction; mandatory injunction directing approval of PDD granted (subject to neutral site-plan review); security waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: legal conclusions must be supported by facts)
- Winter v. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- Reg'l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35 (definition and proof of disability under FHA/ADA)
- LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (FHA standing and ‘‘aggrieved person’’ analysis)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (standing to challenge discriminatory housing practices)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (organizational standing principles)
- Lakeside Resort Enters., LP v. Bd. of Supervisors of Palmyra Twp., 455 F.3d 154 (when treatment/shelter facilities qualify as FHA dwellings)
- Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37 (municipal zoning actions tainted by discriminatory public opposition)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (burden-shifting and proving pretext in discrimination claims)