Opinion ID: 6344431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Weiss

Text: Although the district court concluded that Weiss’s requested accommodation was unnecessary because he “could not walk the distance to [a patio] grill” when experiencing extreme exhaustion, R. 59, PID 1724, we acknowledge that there may be a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Weiss’s requested accommodation was “necessary” under the FHAA. On the one hand, Weiss indicated that when he experienced the effects of his medical conditions, he could only walk “a few steps in [his] apartment” and could not “walk anywhere outside of [his] apartment, including to [his] car in the Acacia garage or to the [grilling area].” R. 49-2, PID 894. On the other hand, Weiss requested that Acacia permit him to grill on his patio, “which [was] only a few steps for [him] to walk to.” Id. This suggests that Weiss believed that he could grill on his patio even when experiencing extreme exhaustion. We need not address the necessity of Weiss’s requested accommodation, however, because the accommodation was not “reasonable” based on this record. Although granting the accommodation might enable Weiss to enjoy the full benefits of living at Acacia, doing so would impose significant administrative burdens on the condominium association and undermine its justifications for the prohibition of individual grills. Phillips and Weiss did not provide evidence refuting those burdens. We reject Weiss’s suggestion that the insurance broker’s statements about Acacia’s coverage and premiums were speculative; the statements were based in part on the broker’s decade of experience working with Acacia, and no evidence was offered to undermine the broker’s contentions. Because of the associated burdens on Acacia, Weiss’s requested accommodation was not “reasonable” under the FHAA. Although the district court did not address the reasonableness of the accommodations at issue, this court can affirm the district court’s -9- No. 20-4182, Phillips, et al. v. Acacia on the Green Condo. Ass’n, Inc., et al. decision on any ground supported by the record. M.J. ex rel. S.J. v. Akron City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 1 F.4th 436, 451 (6th Cir. 2021). Weiss’s argument that Acacia was required to engage in an “interactive process” with him to discuss potential accommodations fares no better. This court has concluded that “while some courts have imposed an obligation on employers and employees to engage in an interactive process, there is no such language in the Fair Housing Act or in the relevant sections of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s implementing regulations that would impose such a duty on landlords and tenants.” Groner, 250 F.3d at 1047 (citing 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.200– 100.205). Accord Howard v. HMK Holdings, LLC, 988 F.3d 1185, 1192–94 (9th Cir. 2021); Lapid-Laurel, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of Scotch Plains, 284 F.3d 442, 455–56 (3d Cir. 2002). But see Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277, 1287 (11th Cir. 2014); Jankowski Lee & Assocs. v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 1996).