Suzanne Taylor v. Harbour Pointe Homeowners Assn
690 F.3d 44
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Taylor, a Harbour Pointe resident, lived in a private Buffalo community managed by HPHA with Graser as HOA president.
- Taylor’s glass patio was often described as a “pigsty,” prompts from neighbors and Graser to clean the area.
- Taylor repeatedly allowed Graser and neighbors to move items and to place trellises/curtains to screen the patio, while claiming she preferred to manage cleanup herself.
- In June 2008, neighbors closed Taylor’s garage and cleaned the patio while she was away, leading to complaints of trespass and burglary by Taylor.
- Taylor filed HUD and NYDHR complaints in August 2008 alleging disability-based FHA discrimination; DHR found no evidence of disability or related need for accommodation, HUD adopted that finding.
- On March 19, 2009, Taylor sued HPHA and Graser claiming FHA failure to accommodate; district court granted summary judgment for defendants; fees dispute followed with cross-appeal seeking fees for prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor’s FHA claim survived dismissal for noncompliance with Rule 28 | Taylor argues her appeal raises FHA issues and merits review. | Court should dismiss for Rule 28/28.1 noncompliance. | Taylor's appeal dismissed for noncompliance. |
| Whether Taylor’s FHA claim was frivolous warranting fees to defendants | Taylor contends claim had some basis and should not support fee shift. | Claim was groundless and frivolous; fees warranted. | Claim was frivolous; fee award to defendants affirmed on remand. |
| Whether district court erred in granting summary judgment for lack of accommodation | Defendants failed to accommodate Taylor’s disability. | No accommodation request was made; no policy compelled accommodation; no violation. | Summary judgment affirmed; no prima facie failure to accommodate established. |
| Whether HPHA/Graser are entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(2) | Fees should not be awarded to defendants. | Defendants prevailed and their claim was frivolous. | Fees awarded to defendants; remanded for amount calculation. |
| Whether administrative determinations support or undermine the FHA claim | Administrative findings suggested potential disability-based issues. | Administrative findings contradicted disability or need for accommodation. | Administrative determinations supported lack of disability/need for accommodation; no FHA merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (fee-shifting standard for prevailing defendants; frivolous or groundless claims justify fees)
- Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003) (requirements to show reasonable accommodation prior to liability for failure to accommodate)
- Carrion v. Yeshiva Univ., 535 F.2d 722 (2d Cir. 1976) (feasibility and reasonableness of fee awards when claims are baseless or vexatious)
- Reg’l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2002) (requirement to make reasonable accommodations to provide equal opportunity)
- Ernst Haas Studio v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1999) (dismissal for failure to provide coherent legal theory; noncompliance consequences)