United States v. THE DORCHESTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION
2:20-cv-01396
| E.D. Pa. | Mar 22, 2022Background
- The United States and Louise Hamburg sued the Dorchester Owners Association (DOA), alleging the DOA violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant Hamburg an emotional support animal (ESA) exception to its no-pet policy.
- The United States filed suit March 12, 2020; Hamburg intervened June 4, 2020; the court previously denied the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment and DOA moved for summary judgment, which the court denied on March 22, 2022.
- Hamburg submitted medical documentation (including a July 19, 2018 letter and a sworn declaration from treating psychologist Dr. James McClymonds) asserting she suffers from generalized anxiety disorder with panic attacks and needs an ESA.
- DOA contends Hamburg failed to participate adequately in the interactive process and did not provide reliable documentation showing she is disabled or needs an ESA; DOA also questions whether Hamburg genuinely resides or will reside at the Dorchester.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact on (at least) whether Hamburg is a person with a disability, whether the ESA was necessary and reasonable, whether DOA refused accommodation or delayed unduly, and whether Hamburg’s residency/standing supports damages—thus trial (including a jury) is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DOA refuse a reasonable accommodation (ESA) in violation of FHA §3604(f)(3)(B)? | Hamburg/US: DOA denied an ESA exemption needed to afford equal opportunity. | DOA: Any delays/refusal resulted from Hamburg’s failure to provide reliable documentation or participate. | Denied MSJ: factual disputes exist whether DOA refused or unduly delayed; jury must decide. |
| Is Hamburg a "person with a disability" under the FHA? | US/Hamburg: Treating psychologist’s letter and declaration show GAD substantially limiting major life activities. | DOA: Documentation insufficient to establish a disability. | Denied MSJ: sworn declaration and record create genuine dispute for jury. |
| Was the ESA request "necessary" and "reasonable" to afford equal opportunity? | US/Hamburg: Evidence supports that the ESA was necessary (mitigates symptoms) and reasonable. | DOA: No reliable proof of disability-related need; therefore accommodation not necessary. | Denied MSJ: triable issues on necessity and reasonableness. |
| Does Hamburg have a cognizable damages claim given residency/intent to reside? | US/Hamburg: Prior denial supports damages claim even if not currently residing full-time. | DOA: Hamburg hasn’t lived or visited in years; not a bona fide resident. | Denied MSJ: credibility and residency are disputed factual issues for jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Wind Gap Mun. Auth., 421 F.3d 170 (3d Cir.) (distinguishes types of FHA disability claims and elements).
- Lapid-Laurel, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Tp. of Scotch Plains, 284 F.3d 442 (3d Cir.) (framework for burden-shifting on reasonable accommodations).
- Revock v. Cowpet Bay W. Condo. Ass’n, 853 F.3d 96 (3d Cir.) (undue delay or constructive refusal can violate FHA accommodation duties).
- Castillo Condo. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 821 F.3d 92 (1st Cir.) (elements for an ESA reasonable-accommodation claim).
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute if reasonable jury could find for nonmoving party).