United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney
940 F. Supp. 2d 974
D. Neb.2013Background
- Plaintiff United States sues on behalf of Brittany Hamilton, who has depression and anxiety, alleging UNK denied a reasonable accommodation for a service animal under the FHA.
- Hamilton enrolled at UNK for fall 2010 and leased University Heights, a UNK student housing facility, but was denied to live with her therapy dog due to UNK’s no-pets policy.
- UNK provides student housing for about 2,280 students annually, including dormitory-style, suites, fraternities/sororities, and private apartments; University Heights is off-campus and apartment-style.
- First-year students are generally required to live in university housing, and on-campus housing involves meal plans and specific assignment processes; University Heights residents may stay through summer with conditions.
- The United States alleges UNK’s conduct violates the FHA’s prohibition on discrimination based on handicap in a dwelling; the central issue is whether UNK’s student housing constitutes a "dwelling" under the FHA.
- The court must determine if HUD’s regulations interpreting the FHA, including the dwelling unit concept, apply and whether university housing fits the definition of dwelling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are UNK student housing facilities 'dwellings' under the FHA? | Hamilton's housing is residential and qualifies as a dwelling under FHA. | University housing is educational, not residential; not a dwelling under FHA. | Yes; UNK housing is a dwelling under the FHA. |
| Does HUD's interpretation of 'dwelling unit' govern and support the dwelling conclusion? | HUD interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference and supports dwelling status. | HUD interpretation is not controlling on whether a building is a dwelling. | HUD interpretation is entitled to deference and supports dwelling status. |
| Does the concept of 'dormitory' within § 100.201 compel the dwelling finding? | A dormitory is an example of a dwelling unit and thus supports dwelling status. | Dormitory is merely sleeping quarters and not determinative of dwelling status. | Dormitory is a dwelling unit example; UNK housing fits within the dwelling concept. |
| Would defining education housing as a dwelling conflict with other regulatory regimes (e.g., ADA, state law)? | FHA coverage promotes fair housing; conflicts are resolved by statutory scope, not exclusion. | There are regulatory distinctions (e.g., ADA) that could indicate non-dwelling status for certain contexts. | No contradiction; FHA applies given the statute and HUD interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir.2008) (residence meaning includes longer stays and communal living aspects)
- Lakeside Resort Enters., LP v. Bd. of Supervisors of Palmyra Twp., 455 F.3d 154 (3d Cir.2006) (courts give liberal construction to FHA language)
- Lauer Farms, Inc. v. Waushara Cnty. Bd. of Adjust., 986 F.Supp.544 (E.D.Wis.1997) (migrant worker quarters deemed dwellings under FHA)
- Hernandez v. Ever Fresh Co., 923 F.Supp.1305 (D.Or.1996) (factors showing habitation akin to residence)
- Villegas v. Sandy Farms, Inc., 929 F.Supp.1324 (D.Or.1996) (quarters for workers treated as dwellings during employment)
- Franchi v. New Hampton Sch., 656 F.Supp.2d 252 (D.N.H.2009) (boarding schools can be dwellings under FHA)
- Robinson v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc., 610 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir.1979) (apartment-style housing treated as dwelling)
- United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d 877 (3d Cir.1990) (broad interpretation of dwelling encompasses residential areas)
- Garcia v. Condarco, 114 F.Supp.2d 1158 (D.N.M.2000) (prison context not controlling FHA dwelling issue)
- Conn. Hosp. v. City of New London, 129 F.Supp.2d 123 (D.Conn.2001) (family-like structure in group homes not excluding dwelling status)
- Home Quest Mortg. LLC v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 340 F.Supp.2d 1177 (D.Kan.2004) (illustrates dwelling-like residential premises)
- Beeler v. Astrue, 651 F.3d 954 (8th Cir.2011) (Chevron deference framework for agency interpretations)
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2003) (agency interpretation deferential review guidance)