Summers v. City of Fitchburg, 940 F.3d 133

Jeffrey Summers and Jeffrey's House, Inc. operate four sober houses in Fitchburg, MA for persons recovering from addiction.
Massachusetts law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 148, § 26H) requires sprinklers in lodging/boarding houses with six or more unrelated residents; City officials notified plaintiffs they must install sprinklers and gave six months to comply.
Plaintiffs declined to install sprinklers, offered (but then withdrew) to reduce occupancy to five to avoid the law, and challenged enforcement as violating ADA and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) by denying a reasonable accommodation.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City, finding plaintiffs failed to show the requested exemption was reasonable or necessary; the court also treated the City’s statement of undisputed facts as admitted under Local Rule 56.1 because plaintiffs largely failed to controvert it.
Plaintiffs appealed only the ADA/FHAA reasonable-accommodation claims; the First Circuit affirmed, emphasizing public-safety interests, plaintiffs’ lack of evidentiary support for disproportionate financial burden, and plaintiffs’ failure to controvert material facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denying an exemption from the Sprinkler Law violated FHAA/ADA as a failure to make a reasonable accommodation	Sprinkler costs would force higher rents or reduced occupancy, limiting access and harming residents’ recovery; exemption is necessary and reasonable	Sprinkler requirement serves critical public-safety purpose; plaintiffs produced no evidence that cost burden outweighs safety benefits	Denial affirmed: exemption unreasonable because it would undermine safety and plaintiffs did not show disproportionate burden
Whether municipal officials failed to engage in the required interactive/good-faith process	Officials refused to negotiate in good faith and short-circuited accommodation discussions	City granted other accommodations, gave six-month compliance period, asked for written occupancy commitment and inspections; plaintiffs withdrew their occupancy proposal	No genuine dispute: record shows City negotiated in good faith; plaintiffs failed to controvert facts; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the Sprinkler Law is discriminatorily applied because it exempts some building types	Law exempts certain structures (family households, dorms, licensed group homes), so it discriminates against disabled persons in sober houses	Plaintiffs did not meaningfully develop this argument on appeal; lower court had dismissed disparate-treatment/impact claims	Waived and not considered on appeal

Astralis Condo. Ass'n v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010) (defines FHAA reasonable-accommodation elements)
Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (ADA/FHAA apply to zoning and building-code decisions)
Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 300 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2002) (an accommodation that conflicts with a rule’s purpose may be unreasonable)
Scoggins v. Lee's Crossing Homeowners Ass'n, 718 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2013) (public-safety risks are relevant to reasonableness analysis)
Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2002) (safety considerations can defeat requested accommodations)
Batista v. Cooperativa de Vivienda Jardines de San Ignacio, 776 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2015) (an accommodation is unreasonable if it fundamentally alters a program or creates undue burdens)
Schiffmann v. United States, 811 F.3d 519 (1st Cir. 2016) (district court local rules have force of law; parties must comply with summary-judgment filing rules)