United States v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.
247 F. Supp. 3d 30
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- The United States sued Mid‑America/Post alleging a 20‑year pattern or practice of violating the FHA and ADA by designing/constructing 50 multifamily dwellings without required accessibility features.
- The Government relied on expert testimony comparing the properties to HUD Guidelines and other HUD‑approved ‘‘safe harbors’’ to show noncompliance.
- Post (successor to the original builders) argued HUD Guidelines should not create a presumption of FHA violation, many properties were permitted under state/local codes that incorporate the FHA, and some properties were merely acquired (not designed/built) by Post.
- The Government sought pre‑trial rulings that noncompliance with HUD Guidelines creates a rebuttable presumption of noncompliance with the FHA; Post sought limits on expert testimony and exclusion of certain properties.
- The Court limited the Government’s reliance on HUD internal procedures, ruled on timing of adaptive features, and excluded most of the 50 properties from the pattern-or-practice claim because permitting/regulatory context or acquisition status defeated relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether noncompliance with HUD Guidelines creates a rebuttable presumption of FHA violation | HUD Guidelines are HUD’s minimum/administrative safe harbor and should give rise to a presumption of noncompliance | HUD Guidelines are agency internal guidance, not binding law; courts must decide FHA meaning; other safe harbors/state codes matter | Denied: HUD Guidelines are persuasive evidence but do not create a legal presumption; courts may consider them and expert opinion but not adopt HUD’s burden‑shifting framework wholesale |
| Whether FHA’s "features of adaptive design" must exist at time of construction | Gov: features must be in place at construction; later retrofitting is insufficient | Post: compliance can be achieved by being prepared to modify units quickly | Held for Government: statutory text requires features to be present at construction (except explicit allowance for later grab‑bar reinforcements) |
| Admissibility of properties that Post acquired but did not design/construct | Gov: Post successor‑liability or such properties should count toward pattern/practice | Post: acquiring inaccessible properties is not evidence of having a standard operating procedure of building them inaccessible | Held for Post: Acquired properties are excluded for pattern/practice (except limited instances where Post was actually involved in design/construction) |
| Relevance of properties permitted under state/local codes that purportedly incorporate FHA | Gov: permitted buildings can still be used to prove pattern; HUD Guidelines show noncompliance | Post: permits under codes that ‘‘deem to satisfy’’ FHA create a presumption of compliance; using permitted buildings without showing defect in permitting is unfair | Held for Post in many jurisdictions: where state/local codes plainly incorporated FHA/safe‑harbors (GA, NC, NY, many TX facts not developed), properties excluded unless Gov shows permitting process or permit was defective; Florida and some Virginia/other properties remain admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (establishing standard for pattern or practice liability)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (agency interpretations may inform but do not bind courts outside formal adjudication/rulemaking)
- FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 708 (agency guidelines are persuasive context but not binding on courts)
- J.R. Harding v. Orlando Apartments, LLC, 748 F.3d 1128 (11th Cir.) (buyers/acquirers generally not liable for original design/construction FHA obligations)