Disability Advocacy

Enforcing the Rights of People with Disabilities To Live in Integrated Settings

Since its founding in late 1999, Relman Colfax (the “Firm”) has used litigation on behalf of people with disabilities under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  As outlined below, the firm’s litigation has resulted in important, precedent-setting decisions in federal courts throughout the country and secured accessible housing for thousands of people with disabilities, in addition to producing substantial resources for community housing accessibility funds. 

From its early cases challenging insurance discrimination against recovery homes and community residences, to its design and construction litigation under the FHA, to its work on behalf of securing reasonable accommodations and modifications from landlords and colleges, to its challenges of discriminatory actions by municipalities and housing authorities, the Firm’s disability practice has been driven by a commitment to secure the promises of housing choice and community integration embodied in federal disability rights laws.

Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. City of Chicago

Relman Colfax filed a lawsuit in May 2018 alleging that the City of Chicago’s affordable housing program—with more than 45,000 units—is inaccessible to people with disabilities. The complaint alleges that the City does not comply with the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit requests that the City bring all developments in the Affordable Rental Housing Program into full compliance with federal law and to put in place policies and practices to provide meaningful access to the Program for individuals with disabilities.

The City’s summary judgment motion was denied on September 30, 2024, with U.S. District Court Judge Edmond E. Chang rejecting all of the City’s defenses. The opinion is perhaps the first time a federal court has held that a city’s entire affordable rental housing program must comply with the federal accessibility requirements of the ADA, Section 504 and the FHA

Judge Chang’s opinion makes clear that “the City has a regulatory obligation to ensure that the private developments [funded by the City] comply with federal accessibility laws,” including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504)—which applies to recipients of federal funds—and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). In its motion, the City sought to escape liability because it was not the owner, operator or property manager of any of the housing developments. Rejecting those arguments, Judge Chang pointed out that if Chicago “could evade liability by simply placing the burden on third parties with which [it] enters into a contract, then [the federal accessibility laws] would lose much of their force.”

Independent Living Center, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

In August 2016, the Firm the largest affordable housing accessibility case in the nation’s history, on behalf of two Centers for Independent Living and a private fair housing enforcement organization.  In the face of this overwhelming evidence, the City agreed to a settlement on August 30, 2016.  The agreement, which is the largest of its kind in the country, provides that, over the next 10 years, the City will ensure that at least 4,000 of its affordable housing units meet architectural standards required by the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). Those UFAS standards require substantially greater accessibility than the Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines; for instance, UFAS requires accessible roll-in or transfer showers, much larger maneuvering clearances at doors, lowered kitchen counters and greater access to appliances, and grab bars must be pre-installed in bathrooms.

The litigation commenced in January 2012, and the Firm and its co-counsel won a number of important victories along the way, including a decision denying defendants’ motion to dismiss which held that the ADA and Section 504 imposed “program accessibility” requirements on defendants which included an obligation to ensure that private owners receiving public funds to comply with accessibility requirements.  Other interim victories included orders blocking defendants’ attempts to shift liability to those owners, 973 F.Supp.2d 1139 (C.D. Cal. 2013); an order permitting very broad discovery, 296 F.R.D. 632 (C.D. Cal. 2013), and denying the CRA’s attempt to evade liability because of its dissolution, 205 F.Supp.3d 1105 (C.D. Cal. 2016).

The City has also agreed to enforce policies to ensure that those units are inhabited by people who need the specific accessibility features provided. The City has committed to spend at least $200 million during the life of the agreement to provide the required accessibility. In addition, the City will pay a total of $4.5 million to the three plaintiff organizations, who will assist people with disabilities to transition into the newly-accessible units.  A short video featuring one of the Firm’s clients is available at https://youtu.be/4LnekiS5Lu8.

OTHER DISABILITY RIGHTS LITIGATION

Design and Construction Accessibility Litigation

HOME of Virginia v. Historic Housing LLC (E.D. Va. 2016) (settlement of claims alleging design and construction defects and requiring alterations to achieve accessibility of common use areas and in dwelling units)

National Fair Housing Alliance and HOME v. Hunt Investments, LLC, 2015 WL 4362864 (E.D. Va. 2015) (representation of fair housing agencies alleging design and construction defects in a multi-family project in Richmond, VA; settlement required substantial retrofits and monetary payment to be used for accessibility fund)

National Fair Housing Alliance v. H.H. Hunt, 919 F. Supp.2d 712 (W.D. Va. 2013) (claim that an architect is liable for violations of the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act at apartment buildings in North Carolina and South Carolina, even though the architect's work on one project ended more than two years before suit was filed)

National Fair Housing Alliance and North Texas Fair Housing Center v. UDR, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2013) (complaint alleging that the designer and builder of several apartment complexes in the Dallas, Texas, area failed to provide the accessible features required by the federal Fair Housing Act; settlement agreement required units to be made compliant and the payment of damages and attorney fees)

 National Fair Housing Alliance, Intermountain Fair Housing Alliance, and Northwest Fair Housing Alliance v. Rudeen Development, LLC (E.D. Wash. 2015) (representation of three fair housing agencies alleging design and construction defects in five multi-family communities throughout Idaho and Washington; settlement required substantial retrofits and monetary payment)

Miami Valley Fair Housing Center v. Steiner & Associates, (S.D. Ohio 2012) (complaint by fair housing organizations against designers and builders of over 270 allegedly non-compliant dwelling units; settlement required retrofits of units and common areas and payment of damages and fees)

National Fair Housing Alliance v. S.C. Bodner Co., 844 F. Supp.2d 940 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (court decision holding that subsequent purchasers of covered multifamily dwellings may be liable for renting inaccessible units, even if not involved in the original design or construction of non-compliant dwelling units)

Housing Research and Advocacy Center v. K&D Group (N.D. Ohio 2011) (housing discrimination lawsuit alleging disability discrimination by the designers and builders of the largest single residential project in Cleveland in 97 years; defendants agreed to make corrections to dwelling units and common areas, and pay $567,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees)

Lowrey v. Beztak (E.D. Mich. 2009) (design and construction complaint under the Fair Housing Act; settlement required retrofits and substantial modifications to public routes of travel, as well as damages and attorneys fees) 

National Fair Housing Alliance v. Ovation Development Corp. (D. Nev. 2009) (complaint alleging that more than 1500 covered multifamily units in eleven apartment complexes failed to provide the accessible features required by the federal Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act; settlement agreement required units to be made compliant, model units to be placed on first floor, and $750,000 damages)

National Fair Housing Alliance, Inc. v. A.G. Spanos Companies, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (N.D.Cal. 2008) (representation of five fair housing agencies alleging design and construction defects in 82 multi-family projects constructed around the country since 1991; case settlement valued at $15 million)

Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Village of Olde St. Andrews, 2006 WL 3724128 (6th Cir. 2006) (first appellate decision to address application of the Fair Housing Act’s statute of limitations to design and construction cases)

Discrimination by Governmental Entities

Gilead Community Services v. Town of Cromwell, 112 F.4th 93 (2nd Cir. 2024) (Appellate decision affirming a jury’s punitive damages award of a precedent-setting $2.0 million, plus compensatory damages, in a case involving the Town of Cromwell’s discrimination against a group home for men with mental health disabilities).

 Monroe RE, LLC v. Town of Fairfield (2022 settlement of litigation alleging violation of disability rights laws in denying permission to open two group homes for adolescents with mental health disabilities. Settlement requires the Town to issue the certificates of occupancy necessary to complete the licensing and open the homes.  In addition, the Town will pay a total of $1.5 million in monetary compensation)

 Young v. D.C. Housing Authority, 31 F.Supp.3d 90 (D.D.C. 2014) (denying motion to dismiss Section 504 and ADA claims against D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA) concerning failure to provide effective communications for people with hearing impairments; settlement agreement required the DCHA to revamp its policy for providing American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters and other aids to ensure that people with hearing impairments can secure equal access to DCHA programs, like the Housing Choice Voucher and public housing, as well as payment of $350,000 in monetary relief. )

Vance v. City of Maumee, 960 F.Supp.2d 720 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (representation of homeowners against municipality for its alleged failure to accommodate their disabilities; summary judgment granted to plaintiffs)

McNamara v. Ohio Bldg. Authority, 697 F. Supp.2d 820 (N.D. Ohio, 2010) (claim alleging violations of Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act based on the defendants’ refusal to permit plaintiff’s use of a Segway in a public building)

 Idaho AIDS Foundation v. Idaho Housing & Finance Association, 422 F. Supp.2d 1193 (D. Idaho 2006) (claim by organization that provides housing, psychiatric, and other services to people with HIV/AIDS that the Idaho Housing and Finance Association violated the rights of the organization's clients by demanding that it disclose client files, including client names, AIDS/HIV status, medical records, and psychiatric records; settlement valued at $1.375 million)

Community Integration Litigation

State of Connecticut Office for Protection and Advocacy v. State of Connecticut, 706 F. Supp.2d 266 (D. Conn. 2010) (court decision holding that Protection & Advocacy agency has standing to pursue claim under Olmstead/Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; class certified, and case eventually settled with comprehensive relief for class)

Discrimination by Private Companies

Bashin v. Conduent, Inc. (2024 settlement of website accessibility litigation. Under the Agreement, Defendant funded an accessibility audit by a national expert and will remediate the inaccessible features under DPR’s direction. In addition, defendants paid a total of $2 million in damages and attorneys’ fees.)

Levorsen v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc., 828 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2016) (in a case of first impression, holding that a plasma donation center is a place of public accommodation subject to the non-discrimination requirements of Title III of the ADA)

Nevels v. Western World Ins. Co., 359 F. Supp.2d 1110 (W.D. Wash. 2004) (representation of adult family home businesses whose insurance was canceled due to the presence of persons with disabilities; $2 million settlement)

Discrimination by Landlords, Real Estate Agents, and Homeowner Associations

Rodriguez v. Village Green Realty, 788 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2015)( real estate agent’s interference, on account of disability, with family’s continued rental can constitute impairment of a “major life activity,” and that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff can make out a prima facie case of disability on the basis of evidence not produced by a health care professional)

Hollis v. Chestnut Bend HOA, 760 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2014) (first appellate decision to hold that evidence of intent or pretext is not required to establish reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification claims under the Fair Housing Act)

NFHA Deaf Testing Cases (HUD, 2013) (representation of the National Fair Housing Alliance in nine HUD complaints that alleged, as a result of a nationwide testing investigation, discrimination by housing providers against the deaf and hard of hearing)

Olsen v. Stark Homes, 759 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2014) (remanding for trial a claim that the defendant failed to accommodate the plaintiff’s disability due to depression)

Scott v. Croom (D. N.M. 2013) (complaint against landlord for refusing tenant’s request to make modifications to accommodate his disability; Consent Decree entered ordering defendant to change rental policies and pay $200,000 damages)

Velzen v. Grand Valley State University, 902 F. Supp.2d 1038 (W.D. Mich. 2012) (claim of discrimination by student for state university’s refusal to accommodate her disability by allowing an emotional support animal)

Overlook Mutual Homes, Inc. v. Spencer, 666 F. Supp.2d 850 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (court decision holding that an emotional support animal can qualify as reasonable accommodation under Fair Housing Act without specialized training)

Articles on Community Integration

The Firm’s attorneys regularly publish articles in scholarly journals on the subjects of fair housing and equal access to housing for all protected classes, including people with disabilities. Michael Allen in particular has focused his extensive writing and public speaking on advancing the cause of integrated living for people with disabilities.  Prior to his arrival at the firm in 2006, Mr. Allen spent 11 years at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, focusing on community integration and fair housing for people with disabilities. Some of his most relevant written work is listed here:

Transforming Housing for People with Psychiatric Disabilities Report. HHS Pub. No. 4173. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2006.

“Waking Rip van Winkle: Why Developments in the Last Twenty Years Should Teach the Mental Health System Not to Use Housing as a Tool of Coercion,” 21 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AND THE LAW 503 (July/August 2003).

The Well-Being of our Nation: An Inter-Generational Vision of Effective Mental Health Services and Supports (National Council on Disability, September 2002).

RECONSTRUCTING FAIR HOUSING (National Council on Disability, November 2001).