Opinion ID: 3212912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: DeCambre's Discrimination Claims

Text: DeCambre argued in the district court and on appeal that the BHA's policy of counting all distributions from SNTs that satisfied the regulatory definition of income at the time of distribution toward annual income would, if sustained, impact disabled individuals unfairly, and that even if such a policy were correct, the BHA acted unlawfully by failing to exclude from her annual income certain specific trust disbursements that went toward her allegedly medically necessary disability-related expenses. Our ruling rejecting the BHA's interpretation of the applicable regulations would seem to moot DeCambre's argument that an alternative reading would lead to discrimination in the absence 22Nor need we address DeCambre's contention that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of certain erroneous Section 8 eligibility requirements. - 44 - of reasonable accommodations. We therefore express no view concerning the merits of DeCambre's discrimination claims other than to state that the district court on remand may deem them to be moot unless DeCambre demonstrates otherwise.