Opinion ID: 215533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: RISA's Compliance Since 2007

Text: The district court concluded that, even assuming that RISA completed a valid verification survey in September 2007, it cannot qualify for the HOPA exemption because it neither achieved full compliance with HOPA's requirements during the transition period nor properly converted to exempt status after the transition period ended by achieving full compliance without discriminating against families with children.
We agree with HUD that the district court erred. The HUD Secretary's amicus brief explains that a community like Ryderwood, which has continuously operated as a retirement community for persons age 55 or older, can qualify for the HOPA defense after May 3, 2000(the end of the regulatory transition period) . . . by establishing that it currently satisfies the three statutory and regulatory criteria, even if it did not satisfy HOPA's age verification requirement before the transition ended. Such a community is not barred now or in the future from asserting the HOPA defense, notwithstanding the fact that it may have engaged in familial status discrimination after the transition period and prior to establishing compliance with HOPA's age verification requirement. To the extent the district court held otherwise, its ruling is in error. HUD Br. 12-13. HUD's position is consistent with the FHA's plain text. Section 3607(b) provides that a community is exempt from the prohibitions on familial status discrimination when the three HOPA requirements are satisfied. See 42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(2)(C) (providing that the FHA's familial status prohibitions do not apply to housing when at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older, that the community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures demonstrating the intent to operate as a HOPA community and that the community complies with rules issued by [HUD] for verification of occupancy (emphasis added)). Nothing in the statute suggests that a community's past actions preclude it from qualifying for the exemption based on current compliance. The district court erred by relying on HUD's 2006 policy guidance to reach a different conclusion. The guidance addresses a situation not presented here how a community that had not reached the 80% occupancy threshold by the end of the transition period could convert to housing for older persons and take advantage of the HOPA exception. HUD Br. 24. It does not address how a community that has consistently maintained the 80% threshold but has failed to comply with HOPA's age-verification requirements can come into compliance with HOPA and take advantage of HOPA's affirmative defense going forward. Nor does the guidance dictate what should happen prospectively if a community maintains the 80% threshold after the end of the transition period by engaging in familial-status discrimination. Thus, to the extent the district court concluded that HUD's 2006 guidance dictated that RISA is not entitled now or in the future to take advantage of the HOPA exception, that reliance was incorrect. Nothing in HUD's 2006 guidance forbids a housing community that has continuously operated as housing for persons 55 and over from availing itself of the HOPA exemption on a prospective basis simply because it has previously failed to comply with age-verification requirements. Id. This conclusion does not reward RISA for having disregarded the verification requirement, as the plaintiffs contend. Assuming arguendo that the September 2007 survey satisfies the verification requirement, RISA became exempt from the FHA's prohibitions on familial status discrimination at that time, but RISA cannot claim the exemption for any prior period. See Hayward, 36 F.3d at 837 (housing must meet all three HOPA requirements to qualify for the exemption); HUD, Questions and Answers Concerning the Final Rule Implementing the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995, at 13 (If an individual files a complaint based on familial status and the housing community . . . claims the exemption as a defense, . . . [t]he community. . . has the burden of proving that it was in compliance with HOPA requirements on the date of occurrence of the alleged act or incident of discrimination. (emphasis added)). Current compliance with the verification requirement, in other words, will not shield a community from liability for discrimination occurring before compliance was achieved. And any person aggrieved by that pre-compliance discrimination has two years in which to bring suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A)(An aggrieved person may commence a civil action in an appropriate United States district court or State court not later than 2 years after the occurrence or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice . . . .). A community may not, therefore, disregard the verification requirement with impunity.
The parties dispute whether RISA's September 2007 survey satisfies the statutory and regulatory criteria. The district court, which has not yet addressed that issue, should do so on remand.