Opinion ID: 660223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fair Housing Act and Rehabilitation Act

Text: 10 Under both the Fair Housing Act, 3 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604, and the Rehabilitation Act, 4 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794(a), the plaintiff must allege discrimination based on his handicap. Yet, Talley contends only that his application to the CHA's disabled housing program was denied because of his past criminal conduct. Federally subsidized housing programs may establish tenant selection criteria to determine whether an applicant is qualified for a dwelling available only to persons with handicaps as long as these criteria are applied to all applicants. 24 C.F.R. Sec. 100.202(c)(2); see also Custodio v. Popolizio, 139 Misc.2d 391, 527 N.Y.S.2d 333 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1987), aff'd, 138 A.D.2d 270, 526 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1988). The Fair Housing Act does not require that a dwelling be rented to an individual who would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604(f)(9); 24 C.F.R. Sec. 100.202(d). Thus, it is within the CHA's discretion to find that individuals with a history of convictions for property and assaultive crimes would be a direct threat to other tenants and to deny their applications. 5 Such factors are also legitimate considerations under the Rehabilitation Act that prohibits discrimination based on handicap against an otherwise qualified individual. Since Talley did not meet the CHA's requirements, he was not an otherwise qualified individual. Thus, because consideration of an applicant's criminal record is not forbidden under both the Fair Housing Act and the Rehabilitation Act, Talley's claim based on these statutes has no arguable basis in law.