this raised a question in his mind as to what severe autism meant so he peace said i'd like to meet your brother part of his program in running houses and he has fifteen or eighteen at this time part of his a program and renting houses was to meet and get a application from all of the adults that lived in these house was whether she could get a doctor statement stating whether or not her brother would be a danger to the to the community he is house with next door to some small doctor statement to this effect but he also said if i meet your brother or if i get the doctor statement but we won't have any problems  i think probably and not being naive as ms walker was she probably would construe that as a demand that she wanted a doctor statement while we're on the subject of  lack of sophistication of education i think you mentioned that you at least suggested if you're climbing out of the in a sophisticated as might be ideal in these circumstances that's not a defense is it well  the statute provides that a an individual does not have an obligation to rant to someone who would who would damage their property and somewhere along the line if you have a suspicion or something that would indicate that there is by potential have damaging your property in order to meet that standard logic would tell you that you would be entitled you should be entitled to do at least a poem unary investigation to make a determination as to whether that person would be damaging to your property and that's what mr or corey was attempting to do at that time and his limited knowledge of saying well i count on no someone like this or leos and may be disruptive and that from the secretary's perspective because what limits us is we could feel totally different about how this goes but we're limited to our standard of review here in terms of what the secretary did on an administrative procedures act so when we're dealing with a perspective  someone just based on their own believe whether sophisticated and not of a person's disability would create a different circumstance they that's from i'm stand is where the secretary went my mother's a weapon and shot up the school who was a severe autistic if that had kept had occurred immediately before this i think that we would not have an argument here that he would not have a suspicion that there was a basis for inquiring into whether or not there would be violence here i'm trying to follow that to understand the mere fact of knowing someone is  leave you to have some caution in light of newtown even on these banks what what tell me what you're talking about because i'm not understanding that analogy if what we're talking about is a disability and he act as you cannot discriminate against someone simply because they have a disability under sun the fact that he actually saw this individual he had any knowledge about his propensity he just had one fact he his that's that's correct as a result of that he then lays out these conditions that i don't think anybody else gets in terms of a one million dollars bond and that's what i'm trying to help me with that and understand where you go well he was trying to determine whether this condition this handicap readily acknowledges a handicap he was trying to determine whether this handicap constituted was was a condition that would result in damage to his property now if she had said he is autistic i would totally agree with you sir that he would he would have no basis for making an additional suggestion a requirement that she get a million dollar insurance policy or a doctor statement i would totally agree do you think of severe autism is she says i don't i don't know i say can you define and she said no so she had lived with this fella and she couldn't define it when i got into this case not in a what  lying why go ahead i'm sorry but she was obligated he handed her a an application he says phyllis out now he testified she did not feel the application asked she never applied for the job  i'm sorry she never applied for the for the house she did not fill out the application now he testified and there it went and everybody the testified in the situation including her then current landlord said that he would not lease a house to anyone who would not for had not filled out an application that she put to his landlord on the witness stand and i asking that question and that's what he said now the application according to mr corey what he did was he checked the person's employment he checked their income he checked their  credit rating he checked their criminal rating now his checking of the for credit indicated he did not get to check it because he hadn't filled out the application one million dollar insurance policy you know and of doctors know if when she advised him of her brother's disability he had simply deliver the application process person expresses an interest in running a property the landlord provides at that location in writing the form is filled out the information is given to the landlord and the didn't do that i understand that and judge if you look back on this case from from this perspective certainly that would have what i would have advised him to do but he was spooked if you will a disability not unlike the law is aimed at honor stand that but the reality of the matter is judge that he he was concerned as to whether or not he would have the subject of his property or his neighbors to damage and he wanted to find out from her doctor and mr walker said it would have been a very easy saying and she could have gotten this doctor statement in a few days but she decided not to do it because he spoke there well i don't know whether she set him up or not she could well have done that there's no evidence that i know of the she did best and she set him up i said either so i said there is no evidence that she wanted to go through all of this pardon me are you suggesting to the court that no sir i didn't think no sir no s to that situation but the fact of the matter is that he gave her the application had she completed the application had he gone through his normal process of reviewing the application and making a determination as to whether or not she qualified for the ranch she did not have sufficient income to do this she did not she could not pass a criminal test and she could not pass the credit test all but none of that excuses what happened prior to that process with respect to the claims in this case if your client violated the law before any of this occurred and before this application might have been rejected as you assume it's still doesn't excuse the statements that were made application and those were i mean that's predominantly what the secretary was concerned about and  appreciate that your honor but the secretary also referred to the mcdonnell douglas standards which is a supreme court case in the labor in the labor field that sets the standards not they fall in the application which she did not the third one whether or not she was denied and whether or not there was a basis for doing that let's even with mcdonnell douglas you get there if you secretary has found there is direct and it don't want douglas kicks in when you dealing with indirect evidence which the secretary on a macdonald other but but still your honor she has the head under any standard at least in my view of the law under any standard you have to be in a position where you  you qualify for the for the randall somebody came and said well i'm not employed i don't have any income i don't work i don't do anything but i want to rent a house and that is correct but the problem here it as i indicated earlier part of that challenge that you have is the standard of review we are limited to and that is we then look at what the secretary has done and we've got a very limited window  review and that is whether it is supported by evidence i'm understand if we disagree we can agree with every word you say but nonetheless if that's supported by evidence we're stuck with understand that  occurred and that was one of the conditions that she's held to be illegal but as it minister a law judge found that was a condition that was hale that was standard in the applications he required of everybody asked miss walker in her testimony if she thought it was reasonable that they person be required to pay for the damages that they occurred and she said that she said she thought that was reasonable yet the secretary used that as one of the basis for denying are for a ruling that he discriminated against was the secretary  of the circumstances of that early interaction between them of course any tenet has to pay for damages is what we have security deposit i don't you target the record to mean that the secretary singled out without regard to the contacts his statement to her that she was going to have to pay for damage think i can give you that record  of the discussion about the brother of the autism the danger it wasn't just paying for damage caused by the tenet it was damages caused by her brother but that was a standard that was a standard requirement in his contract with everybody that's exactly the point so if you just give in there the application and proceeded with the legal investigation whatever leas document they eventually would have executed would have contained exactly that so the question is why was it necessary to even discuss that in advance of the completion of the  had a basis for infer that this interaction this initial interaction was in the nature of an interim interaction use your word to spook air off and he read it the place to a family that actually had less income didn't she did according to of the record i understand he made this statement about the car and she had expenses car having a car i don't know if that's true sometimes people who have of the parts been less money on transportation to have to take public transportation or taxi cab but you know in addition to that your honor there was a three hundred to three hundred fifty dollar income that she claimed that she made off the books lot of people do  in rental if they didn't produce of this particular amount of income that would have been perfectly proper in this case if he had permitted the application process the fall of the ordinary course one w  may please court christopher wang on behalf of the secretary of the partment of housing and urban development it would be remiss if i didn't open my remarks with a response to opposing counsel's invocation of sandy hook which george when had a question about my position that this statement is just additional evidence that mr corey doesn't get it there's been plenty of crimes of gun violence that have been committed by individuals without disabilities yet we don't assume that individuals with certain physical characteristics in common with those shooters are necessarily dangerous likewise the fair housing act prohibits assuming that individuals with autism are dangerous merely because adam lanza was dangerous after learning from potential tenant to laurice walker that she would be living with her brother gregory who is diagnosed with autism and mental retardation michael corey did not subject walker to only neutral and generally applicable requirements such as providing potential tenant indicating that a disability is severe as opposed to just a general normal quote a normal course of disability in any way affects the obligation of the landlord to apply only neutral and generally applica trying to understand she revealed it to him for some reason why she says she indicated in the record that she's very open with potential landlords that her that she is caring for her brother who is a grown man in  been diagnosed with autism and and mental retardation i think it's just a matter of her wanting to be fully upfront and disclosing to her the condition all of the scenes discriminatory in and of itself that if someone is disabled why do you need to tell someone that i don't think a lot of point she is the adjectives here to it it's almost as if to alert alert lanl that you are i have someone who you about to run it and she says i have a forty eight year old brother who has a video autism and you say what you say and walk away you say i would like to to meet him have agreed and indeed the record she testified that she brought gregory to two to several subsequent in person to ours would it be discriminatory to then investigate once you know a person has autism is  discriminatory conduct something special and do something different than you do with anybody else so it is your honor because it naturally assumes that all i'm going to say i want to meet you work to see what autism is about or to discriminate against to meet him to see whether what his condition is like is like i think there were several people who testified that gregory was a very gentle soul and had he met gregory in person he would have seen that that's part of  you told me it was it was be discriminatory for him to investigate i would say well the point i'm trying to make is that it's not discriminatory if you apply neutral and generally apply couple requirements that you apply to all potential tenants say if mr corey had a requirement i think he claimed this in below and in the briefs that he has a requirement that he meets all potential tenants before he leases any property to them and if he had done that then he then that would be permissible that would not be a violation  suspect we would be here right now what he did wrong was after assuming assuming for the matter assuming his account of the story is correct in that he did asked to meet gregory is when he went beyond the request to meet impose these three discriminatory conditions that he related directly to gregory's disability impose only on individuals with disabilities that's where the violation the fair housing act came well but the landlord says at least respect one of these that the assumption of responsibility for damages applied across the board how does the secretary deal walker to sign it i also add that in considering the totality of the circumstances that in addition to this request for liability insurance and a request for a doctor's note their assumption of responsibility was just sort of an additional insult to  walker basically telling her that she would have to she would have to satisfy all these conditions to rent the property just because mr corey assumed that her brother was dangerous because of his disability that he doesn't protect against insult at least not  insults against discrimination that's correct your honor that i think that that goes toward her emotional distress she suffered but indeed indeed you are correct that that as long as the conduct here has to be discriminatory or indicated a preference or limitation against individuals with disabilities which i haven't for i think that's very clear that the conduct in this case did those the this is somewhat outside the record but i'm  secretary operate a form of community mediation one of the things that strikes me about this case is that it probably could have been resolved in a very healing educate way under the right circumstances in the right community because frankly i suspect this kind of thing happens far more often than we would like to think and i would like to think that not every time it happens it turns into a federal case that there's anything wrong with  i'm just curious to know whether the secretary and i know the civil rights division operates all kinds of community mediation and healing kinds of processes that help people rise above the ignorance and i say that with all respect because people are incorrect about the civility and differences and there's a difference between ignorance and intolerance and sometimes if we can address ignorance without specifically intending to we end up addressing intolerance or suspicion or stereotyping so sorry for the long speech but does the department either or or some rights division take an approach that achieves those kinds of goals as well as white i agree completely with your sentiments judge davis i don't know for certain if hyde operates such a mediation program i do know that as part of the injunctive relief mr quote was ordered to take some federal fair housing act training courses so i suspect that that might be part or everything we see in the record is a respectable businessman who is providing services and housing to people in the charleston area but i suspect i suspect that he felt a little insult himself by the charges placed again practical of fact of what we're doing here and what we're limited here really is driven by our standard of review here so this court is fairly limited in terms of what it can do all of which we can be on some things when we are following the what judge davis indicated exist it doesn't mean for preclude you can't do that now before this court he says something that you know seems like it if the parties he would get together and work this thing out you could avoid what we're dealing with right now and perhaps even a board one of the law might flow from here if there's an interest in that sort of thing it just seems like all parties would be interested in that happening and what may be a way to resolve it and i'm sure you haven't precluded that but i just think if that exists before i don't see why it can't exist ma'am given what we're dealing also not to this is not the is this an important case in so many respects i mean it's something that can be worked out between parked well the big benefit all the parties except the lawyers your honor but i would say that things that are good for agree your honor i now like to turn briefly to the financial qualifications argument that opposing counsel made he did spend quite a deal of time on it i think judge diaz correctly identified the error in this line of argument which is that this is not a refusal to rent case this is a imposition of discriminatory conditions the conditions that are alleged to be discriminatory kori imposed those before he financial qualifications her ability to pay clearly could not have been a motivating factor this is confirmed i think a judge davis brought this point out by corey's subsequent rental of the subject property to an individual without disabilities a he improperly base this defense upon blanket stereotypes of children he with autism he claimed of witness running around in quote unquote flailing their arms and hollering and screaming in outrage rather than any particular concerns about gregory who is a forty eight year old man he never met and we find this comparison of children with a grown man not only to be in awe applicable but particularly insulting to the extent that corey was framing his statements as an up to attempt to obtain evidence to invoke subsection f nine he runs afoul of hud's fair housing act regulations which prohibit a landlord  purchased liability insurance went one step further and was an assumption that gregory's disabilities were severe and rendered him dangerous now like to turn briefly unless the panel has any additional questions about the liability issues to the issues of