Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/269/831/532832/
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 11:28:18
Document Index: 514474348

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12131', '§ 3601', '§ 1983', '§ 12102', '§ 3602', '§ 12131', '§ 3604', '§ 35', '§ 3604', '§ 3604', '§ 12113', '§ 12182', '§ 3604', '§ 12132', '§ 3604', '§ 36']

George Dadian and Astrid Dadian, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Village of Wilmette, Defendant-appellant, 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 2001 › George Dadian and Astrid Dadian, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Village of Wilmette, Defendant-appellant
George Dadian and Astrid Dadian, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Village of Wilmette, Defendant-appellant, 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 269 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2001) Argued February 23, 2001Decided October 18, 2001
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 98 C 3731--David H. Coar, Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
George and Astrid Dadian wanted to reconstruct their home with an attached, front garage. A local ordinance allowed a permit for a front driveway when 50% of the homes on the homeowner's block already had front or side driveways, or when the homeowner could demonstrate a hardship. Only six of sixteen homes on the Dadians' block had front or side drives, so they petitioned pursuant to the hardship exception claiming they had problems with walking (Mrs. Dadian has osteoporosis and asthma, and Mr. Dadian has orthopedic problems). The Village trustees in a 5-2 vote denied the permit because, among other reasons, they believed Mrs. Dadian's problems with "twisting and turning" would create a safety hazard to the small children on the block. The Dadians sued the Village for disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. ("ADA"), and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. ("FHAA"), and for a denial of equal protection and substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The case went to trial before a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the Dadians. Because we find that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and no error in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, we affirm.
Title II of the ADA and the FHAA prohibit housing discrimination because of a person's disability or handicap.3 Both acts provide that a person is disabled, or handicapped, if she has 1) a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, 2) a record of such an impairment, or 3) is regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). Because both acts contain the same definition, we use the terms disabled and handicapped interchangeably throughout the opinion, and construe them consistently with each other. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998). Whether a plaintiff has an impairment and whether it substantially limits a major life activity is to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Byrne v. Bd. of Educ., Sch. of West Allis-West Milwaukee, 979 F.2d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 1992).
A public entity must reasonably accommodate a qualified individual with a disability by making changes in rules, policies, practices or services, when necessary. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2); 42 U.S.C. § 3604; see Washington, 181 F.3d at 847-48. Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable is highly fact-specific, and determined on a case- by-case basis by balancing the cost to the defendant and the benefit to the plaintiff. Bronk v. Ineichen, 54 F.3d 425, 429 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Village of Palatine, Illinois, 37 F.3d 1230, 1234 (7th Cir. 1994). Whether the requested accommodation is necessary requires a "showing that the desired accommodation will affirmatively enhance a disabled plaintiff's quality of life by ameliorating the effects of the disability." Bronk, 54 F.3d at 429. The overall focus should be on "whether waiver of the rule in the particular case at hand would be so at odds with the purposes behind the rule that it would be a fundamental and unreasonable change." Washington, 181 F.3d at 850. See also 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b) (7) and (8).
We find no reversible error in the instruction given.6 First, the text and legislative history of the FHAA support imposing the burden of proof on the public entity that asserts safety as a defense to a disability discrimination action. The FHAA provides that "nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (9). The legislative history shows that this section was intended to incorporate the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in School Bd. of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 288 n.16 (1987), that an individual is not "otherwise qualified" if she poses a threat to the safety of others unless the threat can be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 28-30 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2190. In Arline, the Court held that to determine if an individual was "otherwise qualified" required an individualized inquiry and should not be "based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear . . . ." Arline, 480 U.S. at 287. Thus, to comport with Arline, § 3604(f) (9) was enacted "to require that the landlord or property owner establish that there is a nexus between the fact of the individual's tenancy and the asserted direct threat." H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 29 (emphasis added). The legislative history goes on to state that " [i]f the landlord determines, by objective evidence that is sufficiently recent as to be credible, and not from unsubstantiated inferences, that the applicant will pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, the landlord may reject the applicant as a tenant." Id. at 30 (emphasis added). Based on these statements, we conclude that a public entity that asserts the reason it failed to accommodate a disabled individual was because she posed a direct threat to safety bears the burden of proof on that defense at trial.
Second, Titles I (employment) and III (public accommodations) of the ADA have been interpreted to place the burden of proof on the defendant. Although Title II of the ADA, the chapter at issue here, does not contain a direct threat provision, we have held that the methods of proving discrimination under Titles I and III should also apply to Title II. Washington, 181 F.3d at 848 (relying on the legislative history of Title II). 42 U.S.C. § 12113, the employment chapter of the ADA, specifically provides that:
It may be a defense to a charge of discrimination under this Act that an alleged application of qualification standards . . . that . . . den [ies] a job or benefit to an individual with a disability has been shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity . . . . The term "qualification standards" may include a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace.
Likewise, the public accommodations chapter of the ADA has been interpreted in a manner consistent with placing the burden of proof on the defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b) (3) contains language similar to that found in the FHAA ("Nothing in this subchapter shall require an entity to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others."). This provision was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), to mean that a dentist who refused to treat a patient with HIV in his office "had the duty to assess the risk of infection based on the objective, scientific information available to him and others in his profession." 524 U.S. at 649.
We find the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (9) and the reasoning of courts interpreting the direct threat provisions under Titles I and III of the ADA persuasive. And we hold that the district court did not err in imposing the burden of proof on the Village to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board denied the Dadians a front driveway permit because Mrs. Dadian posed a direct threat to the safety of others.7 Therefore, we see no reason to order a new trial.
Title II of the ADA provides: "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, pro- grams, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The FHAA provides: "It shall be unlawful to discriminate against any person in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling because of a handicap of that person or any person associated with that person." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) (2).
We do find that the district court erred in limiting the direct threat defense to the intentional discrimination claim. Whether an individual is "otherwise qualified," i.e., poses a direct threat to the safety of others, is also relevant to a plaintiff's failure to reasonably accommodate claim. School Bd. of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 288 n.16 (1987); H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, at 28-29 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2190; 28 C.F.R. § 36.208. The error was harmless, however, because the jury's verdict in favor of the Dadians shows that it did not believe that Mrs. Dadian posed a direct threat to the safety of others under either theory.