review we would like a full and independent review of the district court's grant of summary judgment for the appellee quoting the district court this is a novel issue to which the eleventh circuit has not spoken not was saying that the district court determined the law of the circuit by improperly relying on a two thousand a decision in schwartz fees first is city of treasure island and the two thousand and fifteen philip you versus apartment investment and management company and the second circuit decision in salou versus stratford green apartments and decided that the law in this circuit does not require an accommodation based on disabled persons financial condition when those accommodations were not have been made for a non disabled person that is not a proper analysis whether an accommodation would be made for a non disabled person a reasonable accommodation standard it requires for four elements whether the person is disabled within the meaning of the fair housing act whether they requested a reasonable combination whether there were accommodation is necessary for the person to have it to afford an opportunity for full and equal enjoyment of the dwelling and whether the defendant deny that opportunity is an employment case the court often looks and or a in order to determine fair housing are cases and the purpose of the fair housing act is to treat people differently in order to allow them the opportunity to fulfill the functions of in hollywood b employment and in this case would be tenancy the function the essential function of tenancy is the applicant's ability to pay rent in this case there's no dispute that albert sh is able to pay rent he was receiving seven hundred seventy dollars in social security disability income his mortgage payment habitat was going to be three hundred forty dollars a month social security disability income is a more secure for source of income than actually working in the workforce in the workforce the applicant was only required to supply a verification of employment that employment was actually likely was going to supply a notarized statement that his father provided him one hundred dollars in addition in monthly support in order for him to meet the minimum income requirement that habitat requires for for tenancy  yes your honor and annuities an option the same way that a trust would issue payments that payment would be considered income and that income would potentially disqualify him from other government assistance programs including medicare which he relies on and the government also i believe pays his it slipped my mind but there's other it would disqualify him the same way as a trust would and we supplied information about how a trust this circuit says that a financial compensation or accommodation based on a person's financial condition is not permitted under the fair housing act completely goes against this court's decision in zone in case  it's not irrational but in this case an annuity would affect him he would compromise his government assistance so in this case how to tack concedes that he needs an accommodation in order to meet the minimum income requirement but they under it's a reasonable accommodation and the first accommodation you know the fact that they provide alternative accommodations is really more thought a reasonable analysis not a necessary analysis and a court stopped after necessary because  decided that there is a person a role that financial combinations or accommodations based on financial conditions are not permitted under the fair housing act it the district court created law in the circuit that this circuit has not spoken about and there is a conflict between the circuits  the most persuasive cases keebler vs and then the associates in the ninth circuit case that involved a person with aids who was requesting an accommodation of a apartment complex is no cosigner policy you required he also collected social security disability income and he did not meet the minimum income requirement so he requested that his mother cosign with him the court in that case found that the imposition of burdensome policies including financial policies could interfere with disabled persons right to use accommodation that should be the most persuasive case that this court reviews rather than the case that the district court relied on in salute various is shot for green apartments which is a second circuit case that was actually decided before us v us airways the barnett the supreme court case which said that accommodations may need to result in preference for disabled individuals over non disabled individuals basis the plaintiff in this case had an accident when he was he had just turned twenty it was a resting accident that left him a quadriplegic prior to that he was working at a landscape and going to school to learn mechanic aside from the fact that he was working so because he because he was injured so young his full potential of income was never actualized so you can't look at the fact that yes he made this income prior to becoming disabled so he would have met the minimum income standard then you know if he would have kept it going in landscaping so that's not a fair determination either the fact remains that he did work prior to becoming a quadriplegic and now he doesn't and he dealers i think the quantity of and if you mostly have to look at the fact that he was working and now he's not working because if you focus too much on what he made prior to it's not fair because he he never got to actualize his f working potential you know you you you learn more you go to school you have promotions your income at one point is now your income forever so it's not fair to just look at his income prior to becoming disabled  as a as a factor to whether or not he's able to qualify for this minimum income standard now it's you have to look at a case by case basis and look at the fact that he was working he's not working because of his disability and the fact that he's not working he relies soley on his social security disability income and the income is a secure source of income for him to meet the minimum in for him to pay the mortgage which is a essential function of tenancy and i just want to quickly put my few seconds left talk about the fact that the court also denied our disparate impact claim and we believe that the habitats minimum income requirement affects people who collect eight hundred and forty seven dollars and fifty cents or less her at a more harsh rate than other applicants thank you and i want to just request that this court reversed remand to the district mcclean it please the court my name is robert mclean and i represent habitat for humanity of citrus county that i'll refer to as habitat during argument today habitat sells houses to low income families in citrus county florida these houses are secured by zero interest mortgages in order for an applicant to qualify for one of the zero interest mortgages t there are several requirements but there are two very important ones one the families must agree to provide two hundred hours of sweat equity in helping buy are build other habitat client homes but they also must meet the low income housing guidelines set forth by the u s department of housing and urban development otherwise known as the hud guidelines in two thousand and fifteen which is the date that mr shaw applied for habitat's homeowner program the minimum annual qualifying income for citrus county florida was ten thousand one hundred seventy dollars for a family of one now mr shah's annual income in two thousand and fifteen from s so security disability was nine thousand three thirty six or eight hundred thirty four dollars less than the required cult qualifying income under the hood guidelines now despite this habitat  through its employee rose straw an informed him that if his father who they assumed was helping support him if he agreed to provide an additional one hundred dollars in support this might permit him to qualify mistry on asked for and mr shaw's father agreed supplies a notarized letter stating that he provided this support however habitat's board of directors which makes the final decision on applications to the homeowner program stated that this notarized letter was insufficient guarantee of income for government assistance now it's important to note that in its complaint he alleged that a trust or an annuity would make him ineligible for s s d i after habitat move for summary judgment  argument changed to no it doesn't make him ineligible for s s d i it makes him ineligible for a medicaid and the state of florida is medicare assistance payment program   the attorney stated in a declaration that she had where she said that a trust with mandatory payments could potentially make him ineligible for certain government benefits there was absolutely no evidence presented to the court that an annuity would make mr shaw ineligible for government benefits the argument was made by analogy by mr shod attorney in response to our motion for s judgment but the district court correctly stated in is its order that there was no evidence that an annuity would adversely affect the eligibility for government benefits  so habitat even though we believe that under the law it wasn't required to do so attempted to accommodate mr shah's financial condition by stating we will accept the one hundred dollars in family support but only if it is guaranteed by a trust or an annuity mr shaw said no you've got to take the trust or you've got to take the notarized letter habitat said no and this lawsuit no one here disputes that mr shaw is disabled and therefore protected under the fair housing act in addition no one disputes that the fair housing act would require habitat to provide mr shaw a reasonable accommodation to rent him to permit him to enjoy a habitat housing in fact habitat routinely provides accommodations to its disabled clients for example  it often permits family members or friends to provide some of the sweat equity hours that they are physically unable to do based on their disability however as the district court pointed out habitat was not required to even the sally court which the second circuit court which the district court partially relied upon and its decision even the sally court stated that while there might be a relationship between the disability and the adverse financial condition that's not what the fair housing act was designed to do the fair housing act was designed to accommodate a person's nys disability not their economic condition that might be as a result of the disability and that's what the sat the second circuit said and in its decision that's what the district court said however we believe and i argued this in habitats brief that even if you apply the ninth circuit's decision to the facts of this case then habitat would still be entitled to summary judgment because there was no evidence presented as to mr shah's ability to actually pay the mortgage mr shaw was work history was limited was through a tragic accident disabled at age twenty he he worked in the landscaping no evidence was presented that he had a sufficient income through his work that would have allowed him to meet the mortgage before he was disabled and that different from the gay people or case where the gabler decision specifically referenced evidence in the record that mr gabler prior to being diagnosed with aids made sufficient income as a psychiatric technician to meet the income requirements of the apartment complex where he was attempting to get a lease what stubs compared to what the guidelines were at the time that he was working for example if they hide guidelines stated that he had to have an income in at the time that he became disabled of nine hundred dollars a month for example and his pay stubs showed that then that might be sufficient evidence under the gabler standard in order for him to demonstrate that his accommodation was related to his disability but under the standard that the district court found applied here that relationship is not relevant because the request for an accommodation was to accommodate his economic condition not his disability which is what both the district court and the salary court in the second circuit stated was the test that you had to meet your position housing act is there to place mr shaw and other people in his position in the same position as a disabled person with the same or a non disabled person with the same economic status because there could very well be a person who's not disabled but who is working but does not have sufficient income to meet habitat's low habitats income qualification standards so what the fair housing act is meant to do is to even the playing field and if you start looking at the economic condition of the disabled person you're actually giving them a heads up over a non disabled person in the same economic condition it took to go go forward the court as i said it relied upon to a certain extent the sally decision but it also decided relied upon the eleventh circuit own swarts decision in that case swartz stated that the court requires only those accommodations that are necessary to afford the disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling if the requested accommodation goes beyond addressing the needs created by the handicap then the disabled person is not given that equal opportunity but a preference over the non disabled person that is not permitted by the fair housing act and other words as stated by the second circuit and sally it is fundamental that the law addresses the accommodation of handicaps not the alleviation of economic disadvantages that may be correlated with having handicaps and that to a certain extent addresses the questions that you are asking the judge news so based upon the law of this circuit as announced by swartz and and snails by the second circuit in sala the district court properly found that the fair housing act did not require habitat to accommodate mr shaw's financial condition even though they attempted to do so to do otherwise would have put him in a preferential condition over a non disabled person with the same income now to briefly address the disparate income impact claim mr shaw alleged as follows on his disparate income account of his complaint by setting the minimum gross income requirement for a single family house at ten thousand one hundred seventy dollars habitat excludes any applicant receiving as s d i which includes shaw now in response to this allegation habitat presented evidence in conjunction with its motion for summary judgment that at least eight of its successful applicants within the past couple of years have received social security income or so security disability income as their income yet they qualified in response the plane as a tactic somewhat changed and they stated that the effect of that income requirement was to state that any person with a disability making less than eight hundred forty five dollars a month in s s d i would not qualify but the court found that there was no evidence presented even if you accept that that's an argument that can be made that there was a quantitative disadvantage given to disabled people and citrus county he would have applied for the habitat program in an opposition to non disabled people so with that i will end my argument and thank you  just a few points your honour's the purpose of the fair housing act is to integrate disabled persons into the community and to increase the extent disabled persons enjoy living independently i think that this is most similar to zone in cases in which the seventh circuit aka tunnel walk stated that community based residential facilities provide the only means by which disabled persons can live in residential neighborhoods because of financial reasons considering a person's financial quoting i believe it was a five thousand dollar annuity that was going to issue mandatory payments those minatory payments are considered income and any additional income could disqualify mr shaw from his government assistance so the same way that a trust would one hundred ninety four dollars that he receives in food stamps as income which of would have also allowed him to meet the minimum income requirement essentially of which i requested to accommodations either the notarize no or for habitat to consider food stamps as income in order for him to meet the minimum income requirement it would be a good resolution if it was a path that wouldn't wouldn't disqualify mr shaw from his government assistance i think that's the most important thing and i think it's also telling it's clear that he does need an accommodation accommodation is necessary even the court even though the district found that it wasn't and you know habitat could have considered one hundred ninety four dollars that shall receives in food stamps or habitat could have looked at his his net income rather than his gross income where his gross income as his net income is the same as his gross