Opinion ID: 3037964
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FHA Discrimination Claim

Text: [1] Plaintiffs’ primary claim was that the Condominium Association discriminated against them on the basis of handicap in violation of the FHA when it refused to allow Dubois 7802 DUBOIS v. ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS and Prindable to keep Einstein as a reasonable accommodation for Prindable’s mental illness. The FHA makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any person . . . in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [his] dwelling, because of a handicap” of that person or any person associated with that person. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a disabled] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); 24 C.F.R. § 100.204. “The reasonable accommodation inquiry is highly fact-specific, requiring caseby-case determination.” United States v. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). [2] To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3), a plaintiff must prove all of the following elements: (1) that the plaintiff or his associate is handicapped within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make the requested accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); California Mobile Home, 107 F.3d at 1380; HUD v. Riverbay Corp., HUDALJ 02-930320-1 (Sept. 8, 1994). [3] Although the parties have argued various issues at length, there is a simple answer here. The Condominium Association never required Einstein to leave and thus never refused to make the requested accommodation, which is one of the essential elements of the FHA claim. Dubois and Prindable kept Einstein from the day they brought him home in January 2000 until the day they vacated their unit in September 2003. After Prindable requested an accommodation, the Condominium Association granted them a temporary exempDUBOIS v. ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS 7803 tion from the bylaw while it investigated and decided what to do. Although Dubois and Prindable made the investigation difficult, the Condominium Association did not force the issue. Instead, the Condominium Association, presumably out of patience, prudence, or a combination of both, left the temporary exemption in place and so advised Dubois and Prindable. Since the Condominium Association never refused to make the requested accommodation, plaintiffs’ FHA claim necessarily failed. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f)(3)(B), 3613(a)(1)(A) (requiring a defendant to “refus[e] to make reasonable accommodations” before a plaintiff can file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 3613); see also Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, 124 F.3d 597, 602 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[A] violation [of the FHA] occurs when the disabled resident is first denied a reasonable accommodation. . . .”). Summary judgment in favor of the Condominium Association on the FHA discrimination claim was appropriate. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986) (“[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case. . . .”).2