UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

DEBORAH R. NELSON SEAMSTER, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-265 JD 

)

EDGEWATER SYSTEMS, )

)

Defendant )

OPINION AND ORDER

Deborah Seamster filed a pro se complaint against Mansards Apartments and Edgewater

Systems1 in August 2013 claiming that those entities had violated her rights under the Americans

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Ms. Seamster alleged that Mansards Apartments

refused to accommodate her disabilities and took money from her; her claims against that

apartment complex were dismissed in February of this year. Still pending are Ms. Seamster’s

claims that Edgewater wrongfully removed her from the program that assisted her in paying her

rent.

This cause is now before the court on Edgewater’s motion for summary judgment filed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In accordance with Appendix C to the Local

Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, entitled “Notice to

Pro Se Litigant,” Edgewater provided Ms. Seamster with the text of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56-1 to assist her in responding to the company’s summary

1

 Defendant Edgewater Systems for Balanced Living, Inc. says it was improperly sued as

Edgewater Systems. For purposes of this order, the court will refer to the entity as Edgewater.
judgment motion. Ms. Seamster filed a timely response, and Edgewater a reply. For the reasons

that follow, the court grants Edgewater’s motion.

FACTS

The parties’ dispute in this action relates to Deborah Seamster’s termination from

participation in the Shelter Plus Care Program in the Gary, Indiana area. Edgewater reports that

the Program was implemented and is funded by the United States Department of Housing and

Development; the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority administers the

Program in this state. The purpose of the Program is to provide “permanent housing in

connection with supportive services to homeless people with disabilities,” including “rental

assistance and assistance for utilities for a variety of housing choices.” Deft. Exh. 2, at 3. The

Program uses grant funds “to pay the difference between the actual rent for a unit and 30 percent

of the participant’s adjusted income. . . . Grant funds can also be used to help offset utility costs

paid by the participant if utilities are not included in the rent. Where rent does not include

utilities, the tenant’s contribution is reduced to allow for a reasonable utility allowance.” Deft.

Exh. 2, at 8-9. Shelter Plus will also pay, “when necessary, a security deposit in an amount up to

one month’s rent.” Deft. Exh. 2, at 9. Edgewater reports that Edgewater Systems for Balanced

Living, Inc. is part of the Shelter Plus Care Program; Edgewater administers the program locally

by using grant funds to pay a portion of the rent for qualified participants. 

Deborah Seamster entered into a Shelter Plus Care Program Agreement on January 3,

2013 to receive supportive housing services from Edgewater. Deft. Exh. 1 (Seamster Dep.), Exh.

O. Ms. Seamster acknowledged when she signed the agreement that the rules of the Program had

been explained to her, she would comply with all services outlined in her treatment plan,

2
maintain medication compliance, and attend psychiatric appointments, and she understood that

“failure to follow through with the terms of [the] agreement will result in termination from the

Shelter Plus Care Program.” Seamster Dep., Exh. O. The agreement provides that a resident can

be removed from the Program and have their rental assistance terminated based on any of the

following: violation of the landlord-tenant agreement; engaging in illegal activity; moving to

other HUD funded or subsidized housing; moving voluntarily or without notice; being

incarcerated for more than 30 days or hospitalized for medical or psychiatric reasons for more

than 90 days; submitting incorrect information; subleasing to another person; or failing to

comply with the financial portion of the rental assistance. Seamster Dep., Exh. O.

Edgewater first placed Ms. Seamster in an apartment at the Lakeshore Dunes Apartments

in Gary, Indiana. She was evicted from that complex on or about January 31, 2013. Edgewater

says that based on her eviction from Lakeshore Dunes, Ms. Seamster could have been terminated

from the Program, but, instead, Edgewater retained her in the Program and located another

apartment for her at the Mansards Apartments in Griffith, Indiana. Ms. Seamster claims she slept

in a rental truck for two to three weeks while waiting for another apartment. Pltf. Resp., at 2-3. 

Ms. Seamster signed her lease for an apartment at Mansards on February 14, 2013. Deft. Exh. 3,

at 4. 

Ms. Seamster says she understood that her portion of the monthly rent was $100.94 and

that she was responsible for paying her utilities. She says she paid her portion of the rent from

March 1 through July 1, 2013, but during that time received late fee and eviction notices, and

late fees were added to the amount she owed. Ms. Seamster reports that she contacted her Shelter

3
Plus case manager, Mansards management, and the president of Edgewater, but she couldn’t get

the matter resolved. Resp., at 3. 

On July 10, Ms. Seamster received a letter from her Shelter Plus case manager at

Edgewater informing her that she was being terminated from the Program, effective August 10,

for violations of her lease with Mansards Apartments and non-compliance with the financial

portion of the rental assistance agreement with Edgewater. Mansards thereafter commenced

eviction proceedings against Ms. Seamster based on its claims that she owed $2,140 in past-due

rent and other charges under the lease and she violated the lease by verbally threatening

numerous people and allegedly pointing a taser in their direction. Ms. Seamster maintains that all

of those claims are untrue. On October 23, 2012, a Hammond City Court judge issued an order

directing Ms. Seamster to vacate her apartment on or before October 29 and appear at a hearing

on damages to be held in December.

On August 1, 2013, Ms. Seamster filed her complaint in this court alleging that her rights

under the Americans with Disabilities Act were violated when Edgewater wrongfully terminated

her from the Shelter Plus Care Program. She asks that the court order that she be reinstated to the

Program and that the eviction process be stopped. 

Edgewater has moved for summary judgment on Ms. Seamster’s claims because, the

company says, her termination from the Shelter Plus Program wasn’t based on any disability.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to the

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

4
law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists whenever “there is sufficient

evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). In deciding whether a genuine issue of material

fact exists, “the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to

be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Weigle v.

SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724, 730 (7th Cir. 2013). The existence of an alleged factual dispute, by

itself, will not defeat a summary judgment motion; “instead, the nonmovant must present

definite, competent evidence in rebuttal,” Parent v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 694 F.3d 919, 922

(7th Cir. 2012), and “must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is

a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial.” Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.com, Inc., 476

F.3d 487, 490 (7th Cir. 2007); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2). “[S]ummary judgment is ‘not a

dress rehearsal or practice run; it is the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must

show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events.”

Steen v. Myers, 486 F.3d 1017, 1022 (7th Cir. 2007)(quoting Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese

Factory, 407 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2005)).

DISCUSSION

Edgewater says Ms. Seamster can’t prevail on her claim that she was wrongfully prevented from

participating in the Shelter Plus Care Program based on a disability. According to Edgewater,

Ms. Seamster’s removal from the Program was based on her non-payment of rent and past-due

charges in violation of the terms of the Program. Edgewater says that when Ms. Seamster got

behind in her rent and utilities payments, she was notified by her Shelter Care case worker and

by Mansards Apartments personnel that her account was in arrears, and they requested that she

5
pay the past due amounts to Mansards. When Ms. Seamster didn’t pay the amounts she owed,

she was terminated from the rental assistance program. That termination, Edgewater says, came

only after Ms. Seamster continued for months to violate the terms of her lease with Mansards

Apartments and her agreement with the Program by refusing to pay the amounts due.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides that “no qualified individual with

a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the

benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to

discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. To establish her claim that Edgewater

discriminated against her in violation of the ADA, Ms. Seamster may proceed under the direct

method of proof by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination based on her

disability, or under the indirect method, which requires her to show that (1) she suffers from a

disability as defined in the statutes, (2) she is qualified to participate in the program in question,

and (3) she was either excluded from participating in or denied the benefit of that program based

on her disability. Novak v. Board of Trustees of So. Illinois Univ., 777 F.3d 966, 974 (7th Cir.

2015). “Title II case law . . . requires [Ms. Seamster] to show that, ‘but for’ [her] disability, [s]he

would have been able to access the services or benefits desired.” Wisconsin Comm’y Servs., Inc.

v. City of Milwaukee, 465 F.3d 737, 752 (7th Cir. 2006). 

If Ms. Seamster establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Edgewater to

articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for any alleged adverse action suffered by the

plaintiff. Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises, Inc., 753 F.3d 676, 685 (7th Cir. 2014). If Edgewater

comes forward with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, the company is

entitled to summary judgment unless Ms. Seamster presents “sufficient evidence that

6
[Edgewater’s] proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination.” Novak v. Board of Trustees of

So. Illinois Univ., 777 F.3d at 974; see also Bunn v. Khoury Enterprises, Inc., 753 F.3d 676, 685

(7th Cir. 2014) (“[I]f a legitimate reason is produced, [Ms. Seamster] must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that [Edgewater’s] stated reason is a lie.”). 

The court first notes that even though Ms. Seamster was previously found to be

“disabled” under the terms of the Shelter Plus Program, see Deft. Exh. 2 (Shelter Plus Care

Administration Manual), at 5-8, the Program’s definition of “disabled” differs from the

definition of “disabled” under the ADA. The Shelter Plus Care Administrative Manual provides

that a person is considered to have a disability if that person “has a physical, mental, or

emotional impairment which is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration;

substantially impedes his or ability to live independently; and is of such nature that such ability

could be improved by more suitable housing conditions.” Deft. Exh. 2 (Manual), at 7-8. To

establish a disability under the ADA, Ms. Seamster must show that she has a physical or mental

impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities, 42 U.S.C. §

12102(1)(A), which include functions such as “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks,

seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing,

learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. §

12102(2)(A). That Ms. Seamster was found to be “disabled” by the Shelter Plus Program to

qualify for rental assistance doesn’t mean that she meets the definition of “disabled” under the

ADA. Cf. Weigel v. Target Stores, 122 F.3d 461, 466 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he Social Security

Administration’s decision to grant disability benefits to Weigel is not determinative as to

whether or not she may be considered a ‘qualified individual’ under the ADA.”); Weiler v.

7
Household Fin. Corp., 101 F.3d 519, 523 (7th Cir. 1996) (“As is the case with any ADA

plaintiff, Weiler must suffer from a ‘disability’ as defined in the Act to invoke the Act’s

protection.”); Scott v. Kaneland Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 302, 898 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1007

(N.D. Ill. 2012) (“[T]he definition of a disability under the ADA has been limited to the ADA

context. . . . The mere fact that Scott may have deemed by the Board to satisfy the Board’s

criteria for a ‘permanent disability’ under Board Policy . . . does not mean that the Board deemed

Scott to meet all the special requirements under the ADA to meet the definition of a

‘disability.’). To prevail, then, Ms. Seamster must establish that she suffers from a “disability” as

defined by the ADA.

A review of the parties’ submissions shows that Ms. Seamster hasn’t come forward with

sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence that Edgewater discriminated against her on the basis

of her disability to proceed under the direct method of proof. Ms. Seamster has attached various

documents2 to her summary judgment response, but she hasn’t explained how any of those

documents would amount to direct evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that her

disability was the sole or the but-for cause of Edgewater’s decision to terminate her from the

Shelter Plus Care Program. Nelson v. Board of Trustees of So. Illinois Univ., No. 12-cv-7, 2014

WL 2993708, at *7 (S.D. Ill. July 3, 2014).

Under the indirect method of proof, Ms. Seamster has presented no evidence to establish

the first element of her prima facie case, i.e., that she has a qualifying disability. Ms. Seamster

says she suffers from PTSD and received that diagnosis before she moved to the Mansards

2

 Those documents include a copy of a “Move-In Information & Estimate Form” from

Mansards Apartments; copies of blank receipts forms, labeled “rent receipts” and “utility receipts;”

a record of her drug prescriptions from May 2012 through January 2014; various policy and

informational documents from Edgewater; informational documents relating to the Shelter Plus

Care Program; and a copy of the lease from her apartment at the Lakeshore Dunes Apartments. 

8
Apartments, but she has presented no medical evidence to substantiate her claim of a mental

disability. Ms. Seamster testified at her deposition that she has a physical disability, as well – a

bolt in her ankle, Seamster Dep., at 45 – but, again, she has offered no medical evidence to

support her claim of a physical disability. In fact, Ms. Seamster testified that the surgery on her

ankle took place in 2004, her last medical evaluation by a doctor for that condition was in 2005,

she isn’t currently receiving medical treatment relating to her ankle, and she doesn’t use a cane

or crutch or require assistance to walk. Seamster Dep., at 90-91. Edgewater hasn’t challenged

Ms. Seamster’s claim that she’s disabled, but Ms. Seamster still has the burden of proof on the

first element of her prima facie case: she must show that one or more of her conditions, her

PTSD and/or her ankle condition, is an ADA-recognized disability, that is, a physical or mental

impairment that substantially limits her in one or more major life activities. She hasn’t done so.

She hasn’t come forward with evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that she has a

physical or mental condition that qualifies as a “disability” under the ADA.

The second element of a prima facie case under the indirect method of proof requires Ms.

Seamster to show that she is qualified to participate in the Shelter Plus Program. “To be

qualified, [Ms. Seamster] must meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of

services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.’” Johnson v.

Randle, 451 F. App’x 597, 600 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2)). The rules

governing the Shelter Plus Care Program, see Deft. Exh. 2, contain certain guidelines that

participants must meet. To be eligible for assistance under the Program, an individual must be

homeless and must have a disability that (i) is in need of treatment of a long, continued, and

indefinite duration, (ii) substantially impedes his/her ability to live independently, and (iii) could

be improved by more suitable housing conditions. Deft. Exh. 2, at 5, 7-8. While Ms. Seamster

9
previously qualified for assistance under the Program, she hasn’t addressed the question of

whether she is currently qualified to participate in the Shelter Plus Care Program and, so, hasn’t

carried her burden of establishing the second element of a prima facie case. See Modrowski v.

Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1169 (7th Cir. 2013) (Non-movant “must ‘go beyond the pleadings’

(e.g., produce affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file) to

demonstrate that there is evidence upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict in

her favor.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 

“To establish the third element, [Ms. Seamster] must show [her] disability was the

‘but-for cause’ of the exclusion, that is, that [Edgewater] would not have excluded [her] had

[she] not been disabled.” Novak v. Board of Trustees of So. Illinois Univ., No. 12-cv-7, 2014

WL 2993708, at *6 (S.D. Ill. July 3, 2014). Edgewater maintains Ms. Seamster can’t prevail

because she can’t establish that she was terminated from participating in the Program based on

her disability. In support, Edgewater relies on the affidavit of Tyra Cooper, its Shelter Plus Care

Clinical Coordinator, who reports that in May 2013 she received notification from Mansards

Apartments that Ms. Seamster had failed to make rent and/or utility payments on various

occasions. Deft. Exh. 4 (Cooper Aff.), ¶¶ 4, 14. Ms. Cooper says she called Ms. Seamster twice

to talk to her about the past due rent and utility payments and to urge her to pay those amounts to

Mansards. Ms. Cooper says Ms. Seamster insisted that her rent had been paid. Cooper Aff., ¶ 15. 

Edgewater has also submitted a copy of Ms. Cooper’s May 14, 2013 email to Ms.

Seamster reminding Ms. Seamster that $412.10 for unpaid utilities and late fees was due and

owing to Mansards Apartments. Seamster Dep., Exh. S. Ms. Cooper told Ms. Seamster that:

The property managers at The Mansards Apartments have informed me that they

have not received your monthly rent payments on time, nor have they received

your payment for utilities. Please understand that failure to pay rent is the most

10
frequent cause for Shelter Plus Care participants to lose their housing, and I am

very concerned about the balance due from you. . . . The property manager at The

Mansards also informed me that you have been notified in writing and that she

has spoken to you directly about your balances. She stated that you flatly refused

to pay what is owed. . . . [C]ontinued refusal to abide by the regulations that are

stated in your lease agreement with The Mansards Apartments jeopardizes not

only your ability to continue living on their property, but it may also result in

permanent separation from the Shelter Plus Care Program.

Seamster Dep., Exh. S. 

Ms. Cooper says that when she learned in July 2013 that Ms. Seamster still hadn’t made

the over-due payments to Mansards Apartments, she sent Ms. Seamster written notice of her

termination from the Program based on the following: violation of the lease with Mansards

Apartments; non-compliance with the financial portion of the rental assistance agreement

provided by Edgewater; and failing to receive constant therapeutic services from Edgewater.

Seamster Dep., Exh. T. The termination notice explained the procedure for Ms. Seamster to

appeal the termination decision and advised Ms. Seamster that effective August 10, 2013, the

rental assistance program would terminate and she would be responsible for paying 100% of her

rent and utilities. Seamster Dep., Exh. T. Ms. Cooper says she also sent Ms. Seamster a list of

other community resources available to her. Cooper Aff., ¶ 18.

Ms. Seamster says in response that Edgewater’s reasons for terminating her from the

Program are untrue. According to Ms. Seamster, she paid her rent from March 1 to May 1, 2013;

she wrote a letter to Mansards explaining that the $100 she paid towards the security deposit

should have been applied to her first month’s rent; she wrote to Shelter Plus case manager Tyra

Cooper to let her know that “Mansards was looking for the rent;” and she attempted to meet with

Mansards’ president “about the situation and Ms. Cooper’s unprofessional handling of this

matter.” Resp., at 3. Ms. Seamster says she didn’t violate the “behavioral contract” because she

11
had no disturbances or verbal interaction with staff or other residents until after the contract had

ended and notice of her eviction had been served, and she continued to see her psychiatrist in

order to receive necessary medications and services. Resp., at 4. In conclusion, Ms. Seamster

claims Edgewater failed to protect her from harm, harassment, and being taken advantage of

because of her mental disability by “not effectively informing, communicating or assisting in

[her] care, transportation or services;” Edgewater failed to live up to its own Mission Statement

of addressing her needs, understanding with compassion/respect, and maintaining her safety; and

Edgewater not only violated her civil rights under the ADA, but “morally and intentionally took

advantage of her mental condition of PTSD.” Resp., at 4.

Ms. Seamster hasn’t challenged the rules of the Program or argued that the rule

permitting the removal of a participant from the Program for failure to comply with the financial

portion of the rental assistance agreement wasn’t applicable to her. Ms. Seamster hasn’t

challenged Edgewater’s evidence showing that she failed to pay her rent and utility obligations

in full and in a timely manner, nor has she presented any contrary evidence. Most importantly,

Ms. Seamster hasn’t pointed to any evidence that would support an inference that the real reason

for Edgewater’s action was because of her PTSD and/or the bolt in her ankle. Ms. Seamster’s

complaints that Ms. Cooper didn’t effectively communicate with her and Edgewater didn’t

address her needs with understanding, compassion, or respect don’t constitute evidence

sufficient to support her claim of discrimination under the ADA. 

Ms. Seamster must establish that the reason offered by Edgewater for terminating her

from the Shelter Plus Care Program wasn’t Edgewater’s true reason, but was, in fact, a lie.

Novak v. Board of Trustees of So. Illinois Univ., 777 F.3d 966, 976 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[Plaintiff]

must demonstrate that [defendant’s] reason constitutes a mistruth – a lie on the part of the

12
defendant.”). She hasn’t done so. Ms. Seamster hasn’t carried her burden of presenting evidence

sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that she “is being excluded from participating in

[the Shelter Plus Program] by reason of [her] handicap.” Lyon v. Illinois High School Ass’n, No.

13 C 173, 2013 WL 309205, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2013). The unrebutted evidence shows that

Edgewater (and Mansards Apartments) attempted for some months to accommodate Ms.

Seamster to ensure that she didn’t lose her housing or her ability to participate in the Shelter Plus

Program. Edgewater is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Seamster’s claim that it violated

her rights under the ADA.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the summary judgment motion of defendant

Edgewater Systems [docket # 59] and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment for Edgewater

Systems and against plaintiff Deborah Nelson Seamster.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 1, 2015

 /s/ Jon E. DeGuilio 

Judge 

United States District Court

13