Defending Unlawful Detainers with Reasonable Accommodation Requests - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Defending Unlawful Detainers with Reasonable Accommodation Requests Ca ro lyn Go ld, E sq – Justic e & Dive rsity Ce nte r E rin K a ta ya ma , E sq . – Ho me le ss Advo c a c y Pro je c t

Session Overview 1.An Ove r vie w of Re asonable Ac c ommodations 2.Making the Re que st for an Ac c ommodation 3.T he Inte r ac tive Pr oc e ss 4.Using the De fe nse to De fe at an Unlawful De taine r

Part 1 An Ove rvie w o f Re a so na b le Ac c o mmo da tio ns

Part 1 Overview 1.T he L aws Re lating to Disability Disc r imination 2.What is a Disability? 3.What is an Ac c ommodation? 4.E xc e ptions

The Laws Relating to Disability Discrimination • F air Housing Ac t, 42 U.S.C § 3601 e t se q. • Ame r ic ans with Disabilitie s Ac t, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 e t se q. • Se c tion 504 of the 1973 Re habilitation Ac t, 29 U.S.C. § 701 e t se q. • Califor nia F air E mployme nt and Housing Ac t, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 e t se q. F E HA is to b e c o nstrue d lib e ra lly a nd ma y b e inte rpre te d to pro vide g re a te r pro te c tio ns tha n F e de ra l L a w. Auburn Wo o ds I Ho me o wne r’ s Ass’ n v. F E HC , 18 Ca l.Rptr.3d 669, 677-78, 121 Ca l.App.4th 1578 (2004).

Disability Defined An individua l ha s a disability if tha t pe rso n ha s: • a physic al or me ntal impair me nt that limits one or mor e life ac tivitie s, or • a histor y of suc h impair me nt, or • is r e gar de d as having suc h impair me nt ● 42 U.S.C. § 3602 (h) ● Ca l. Go v’ t Co de § 12926

Disability Defined (continued) In r e sponse to U.S. Supr e me Cour t c ase law nar r owing the sc ope of the de finition of disability, Congr e ss passe d the ADA Ame ndme nts Ac t of 2008. • T he ADAAA sta te s tha t the “de finitio n o f disa b ility in this Ac t sha ll b e c o nstrue d in fa vo r o f b ro a d c o ve ra g e o f individua ls unde r this Ac t, to the ma ximum e xte nt pe rmitte d b y the te rms o f this Ac t.” o 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(a )

Accommodation Defined An ac c ommodation is a c ha ng e to a rule , po lic y, pra c tic e , se rvic e o r pro c e dure whe n suc h a c c o mmo da tio ns a re ne c e ssa ry to a ffo rd a disa b le d pe rso n e q ua l o ppo rtunity to use o r e njo y the dwe lling o r pro g ra m. • 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) • S e e Ca l. Go v’ t Co de § 12927(c )(1)

There Are Exceptions A landlor d will not be r e quir e d to ac c ommodate if the te nanc y would: • “c o nstitute a dire c t thre a t to the he a lth a nd sa fe ty o f o the r individua ls” o r • who se te na nc y wo uld re sult in sub sta ntia l physic a l da ma g e to the pro pe rty o f o the rs.” o 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9) o “Dire c t thre a t” c a n b e suc c e sfful e ve n whe n the re is no e vide nc e o f a c tua l ha rm to o the r te na nts o Po te ntia l fo r ha rm se e ms fa irly dire c t

Direct Threat Cases • F o ste r v. T inne a -705 So . 2d 782 (L a App., De c . 1997) - te na nt who c ha se d c hildre n with knife a nd ma de ina ppro pria te se xua l c o mme nts c o nside re d a dire c t thre a t • Arno ld Murra y Co nstruc tio n, L L C v. Hic ks 621 N.W. 2d 171,173 (S.D. 2001)- nudity in fro nt o f re side nts, ve rb a l a tta c ks a nd miso g ynist sig ns in windo w= dire c t thre a t

Still Requires a Reasonable Accommodation Analysis • L a ndlo rd must sho w tha t no r e asonable ac c ommodation will e liminate or “ac c e ptably minimize ” the risk po se d b y the te na nt. • Ro e V. Ho using Autho rity 909 F . Supp 814, 822 (D. Co lo . 1995)

Part 2 Ma king the Re q ue st fo r a n Ac c o mmo da tio n

Part 2 Overview 1.Whe n? 2.How? 3.No magic wor ds ar e ne c e ssar y

When Should the Request be Made? A r e que st for a r e asonable ac c ommodation c an be at any time , up to the e ntr y of judgme nt for posse ssion. • Do ug las v. Krie g sfe ld , 884 A.2d 1109, 1121 (D.C. COA 2005) Howe ve r , the soone r a r e que st is made , the be tte r . • A re q ue st ma de during the no tic e pe rio d sho uld func tio n to sta y the filing o f the UD c a se while the la ndlo rd e va lua te s the re q ue st.

Requests May Not Even Be Necessary • Co urts ha ve o rde re d L L ’ s to c e ase e vic tion pr oc e e dings e ve n whe n no spe c ific a c c o mmo da tio n is re q ue ste d, b ut whe re a c c e ss to se rvic e s ma y a llo w a te na nt to a lte r b e ha vio r o r pinpo int o the r type s o f a c c o mmo da tio ns tha t will a llo w the te na nt to c o mply with the le a se . • Co urt va c a te d a n o rde r e vic ting a re side nt with se ve re mig ra ine he a da c he s a nd PT SD fro m a fe de ra lly sub sidize d ho using fa c ility, re ma nding the c a se fo r a de te rmina tio n whe the r the ma na g e me nt c o mpa ny a c c o mmo da te d he r disa b ility finding tha t manage me nt kne w of he r disability and kne w the y c ause d oviding e nough R.A . he r disr uptive c onduc t, not pr • T he fa c t tha t, “ A te nant doe s not r e que st a spe c ific or suitable ac c ommodation om making one .” Co b b le Hill Apts. Co . v. Mc L a ug hlin, 1999 doe s not r e lie ve a L L fr Ma ss. App. Div. 166 (Ma ss App. Div. 1999)

How? Be st pra c tic e is in writing , b ut this is no t ne c e ssa ry. T he r e que st should inc lude the following: • A sta te me nt tha t the te na nt ha s a disa b ility. • A de sc riptio n o f the re q ue ste d a c c o mmo da tio n. • A sta te me nt tha t the disa b ility c a n b e a c c o mmo da te d b y the re q ue st.

However, no magic words are necessary. Prillman v. Unite d Airline s, I nc . , (1997) 53 Ca l. App. 4th 935, sta te s tha t: • “[t]he sta tute do e s no t re q uire the [disa b le d individua l] to spe a k a ny ma g ic wo rds b e fo re he is sub je c t to its pro te c tio ns. T he [individua l] ne e d no t me ntio n the ADA o r e ve n the te rm ‘ a c c o mmo da tio n.’ ”

Some potential pitfalls Ho w muc h info rma tio n sho uld b e g ive n? Ac c o mmo da tio n re q ue sts ha ve b e e n c o nstrue d a s a n offe r of se ttle me nt .

Part 3 T he I nte ra c tive Pro c e ss

Part 3 Overview 1.What happe ns ne xt? 2.De aling with r e que sts for mor e infor mation. 3.What if the r e que ste d ac c ommodation is too bur de nsome ?

What Happens Next? Onc e a re q ue st is ma de , a la ndlo rd ha s a fe w o ptio ns: • gr ant the re q ue st • de ny the re q ue st • a sk fo r mor e infor mation • do nothing o if a la ndlo rd fa ils to re spo nd o r de la ys in re spo nding , it c o uld b e c o nside re d a de nia l o f the re q ue st.

Dealing with Requests for More Information What infor mation is a landlor d e ntitle d to? • I f a pe rso n’ s disa b ility is o b vio us a nd the ne e d fo r a n a c c o mmo da tio n is r known , a e adily appar e nt or la ndlo rd may not r mation . e que st mor e infor • I f a pe rso n’ s disa b ility is o b vio us b ut the ne e d fo r a n a c c o mmo da tio n is no t, a la ndlo rd may only ask for infor mation r e late d to the ne e d for an ac c ommodation, not the disability itse lf .

If a Disability Is Not Obvious I f a n individua l’ s disa b ility is no t o b vio us, the n a la ndlo rd ma y re q ue st “ r mation that : e liable disability-r e late d infor 1) is ne c e ssar y to de te rmine tha t the pe rso n me e ts the Ac t’ s de finitio n o f disa b ility . . . 2) de sc r ibe s the ne e de d ac c ommodation , a nd 3) sho ws the r e lationship b e twe e n the pe rso n’ s disa b ility a nd the ne e d fo r the re q ue ste d a c c o mmo da tio n.” Jo int Sta te me nt o f HUD a nd DOJ, Re a so na b le Ac c o mmo da tio ns Unde r the F a ir o Ho using Ac t

Caselaw Bho g a ita v. Alta mo nte He ig hts Co ndo minium Asso c ., “Ho using pro vide rs ne e d only the infor mation ne c e ssar y to appr ise the m of the disability and the de sir e and possible ne e d for an ac c ommodation . Ho using pro vide r is no t e ntitle d to e xtra ne o us me dic a l info rma tio n.” • T he c o mple x wa s fo und to ha ve vio la te d F HA in de la ying re spo nse to re q ue st fo r suppo rt a nima l b a se d o n a do c to r’ s le tte r tha t do g a ssiste d re side nt in c o ping with his disa b ility. • L L ’ s re q ue st fo r irre le va nt a nd intrusive info rma tio n re g a rding a te na nts disa b ility in re spo nse to a re q ue st fo r RA is a c o nstruc tive de nia l o f the re q ue st.

Disability Not Obvious (continued) Ac c o rding the Jo int Sta te me nt, the disa b le d individua l c a n usua lly pro vide the info rma tio n ne c e ssa ry to de te rmine tha t she is disa b le d a c c o rding to the Ac t. ific ation inc lude : Othe r sour c e s of ve r ● pro o f tha t a n individua l is o n SSI o r SSDI ● a do c to r o r o the r me dic a l pro fe ssio na l ● a pe e r suppo rt g ro up ● a no n-me dic a l se rvic e a g e nc y ● a re lia b le third pa rty who is in a po sitio n to kno w a b o ut the individua l’ s disa b ility.