fair housing forum | fair and equal access to housing for all …€¦ · web view2018. 4....
TRANSCRIPT
2015 Idaho Fair Housing Conference April 14-15 in Boise
Fair Housing and ADA May 15 3:00 to 4:30Topic:Examples of how the ADA may apply in housing. Role playing activities on what not to do as a housing provider when working with people with disabilities, how to identify community access issues in housing, and a list of resources to find the answers that you need as a housing provider.
Speakers Amy Schipper HoweAssistant United States AttorneyAffirmative Civil Enforcement Coordinator Civil Civil Rights PointContact United States Attorney's Office800 Park Blvd. Suite 600Boise, ID 83712208 334 1211FAX 208 334 9375
Northwest ADA Center-Idaho Dana Gover, MPA, ACTCP Certification, ADA Specialist in Training & Technical Assistance [email protected] 208-761-3073 ADA TA phone 208-841-9422Website: http://www.nwadacenter.org/idaho
Hands Around The Capitol 25th ADA Celebration July 17, 2015 Capitol Park Boise Idaho Go to our Facebook Page for updates https://www.facebook.com/handsaroundthecapitolSign the ADA Proclamation in support of the 25th Anniversary of the ADA. Go to the following link to sign the pledge: http://adaanniversary.org/proclamation
Donate to Hands Around the Capitol 2015 - Disability Action Center NW: Your contribution is tax deductible. Go to the following link: http://dacnw.org/product/donate-to-hands-around-the-capitol-2015/
Page 1 of 12
SAVE THE DATES Boise, Idaho
Hands Around the Capitol July 17, 2015 at Capitol Park 11:00 am to 4:30 pm
NW ADA Center-Idaho, LINC, DACNW & CID
Join us for the 25th Anniversary ADA Celebrations! In Boise we need your help to recruit 1000 people to circle the Idaho State Capitol with a yellow ribbon showing support for the ADA. Join us- Civil Rights Speakers, Music, Food, Resource Booths, and other FUN activities. Looking for Sponsors. Resource tables for a small fee will be available for organizations to display their materials. Go to our Facebook page for updates: Hands Around the Capitol 2015.
CELEBRATIONS HAPPENING IN: Northern Idaho
DACNW
Lewiston June 12, 2-5pm at Kiwanis ParkCDA July 24th, 11am-2pm at McEuen Park
Moscow July 25th noon-3pm at East City Park.
Eastern IdahoLIFE
July 22nd, Pocatello- at at 3:00pm to 7:00pm Alameda ParkJuly 23, Idaho Falls- at 11:00am-3:00pm Accessible Playground at Tautphaus
Park.
For More Information and Updates:
Dana Gover, NW ADA Center-Idaho: email: [email protected] James Turner, LINC: email: [email protected]
Vicki Leeper, DACNW: email: [email protected] Nielson, LIFE: [email protected]
Page 2 of 12
What Does Housing Discrimination Look Like?
You should be on the lookout for discrimination. . .
• A landlord refuses to rent to a person with a disability on the same terms offered to others or asks questions about disability during the application process.
• Refuses to grant a request for a reasonable accommodation that would allow the person with a disability to live in a unit and enjoy it fully. A person with a disability has the right to request an accommodation in the application phase, during tenancy, or in the context of eviction.
• If a landlord refuses to make reasonable modifications to a unit.
• If a building is inaccessible. The federal law has accessibility requirements that apply to newer construction.
• If, a tenant, is harassed or intimidated because of disability or are subjected to different “terms, conditions or privileges” of rental because of disability.
A landlord may not refuse to rent to a person with a disability, saying, for instance:
• “I cannot rent to you. I am afraid of future liability, if you get sick.”
• “I don’t want someone with a disability living in my building.”
• “Sorry, there are no apartments available.” (If an apartment is available.)
• "I do not allow people to live in my apartments with 24-hour personal care attendants.”
• "I don't have to pay for a Sign Language Interpreter to help your husband who is deaf understand the lease."
A landlord may not refuse to offer the rental agreement to a disabled applicant that he offers others...
• “People who use wheelchairs damage apartments. You will have to pay a double security deposit.”
• “You can only live here if there is someone to take care of you.”
• "You can't have an assistance animal we have a no pet policy."
• "You can't swim in the pool you are in a wheelchair."
• "I heard you have AIDS! I can't rent to you I don't want to catch it."
• "You have a child with a disability! I can't rent to you because she will disturb the other tenants."
Page 3 of 12
• "Your wife is blind. She might cause a fire when you are at work! How can she cook safely."
• "You are deaf and can't hear the fire alarm. How can you wake up if you can't hear the fire alarm."
What “Fair Housing Means" For People With Disabilities link to guide:http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bdk6FSfUBOQ%3D&tabid=104
Common Questions and Solutions
PARKING
Scenario: The rental office has an adjacent parking lot with 10 spaces however there are no designated accessible parking spaces. Is there a requirement to include accessible parking spaces in the rental office parking lot?
Yes the rental office parking lot that serve the public must comply with the ADA access requirements, Title III of the ADA if privately owned or Title II if owned by a government entity. The rental office would follow the parking requirements defined in the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Link to 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm
When More than One Law Applies
The Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements do not preempt the ADA and in those cases where a development is subject to more than one accessibility standard, the laws and the standards must be read together and followed together.
There are certain properties, or portions thereof, that are covered by both the Act and Title II and/or Title III of the ADA. These may include certain timeshares, dormitories, residential hotels, boarding houses, nursing homes, homeless shelters, congregate care facilities, public use portions of private multifamily dwellings, and public housing. These properties must be designed and built in accordance with the accessibility requirements of both the Act and the ADA. In addition, to the extent that the requirements of these various laws overlap, the more stringent requirements of each law must be met, in terms of both scoping and technical requirements.
DOORS
Scenario: Entrance door to the rental office is very heavy to open. An elderly woman interested in renting an apartment uses a walker for mobility and can't open the door.
Recommendation: One solution might be to adjust the door closure. If this isn't possible the installation of a buzzer to alert the office management staff to open the door. Another option is to install an electric door opener. The ADA does not require automatic door openers to be installed. However if this woman is a tenant under the FHA she has the right to request a reasonable accommodation to get a automatic door installed.
Page 4 of 12
Resources: Consult the fact sheets on doors at the following links
Adjusting Doors for Access | ADA National Network link to Factsheet:https://adata.org/factsheet/adjusting-doors-access
Opening Doors To Everyone | ADA National Network link to Factsheet:https://adata.org/factsheet/opening-doors-everyone
CLUB HOUSE
Scenario: A multi-family complex was recently built in June of 2012. The clubhouse at the facility is frequently rented out for weddings and meetings. The rental fee includes the use of the pool, pool table, air hockey, kitchen, bathrooms, and computer work center. Unfortunately the clubhouse is not accessible as there are two steps into the facility. Once you enter into the clubhouse the bathrooms are not accessible and neither is the kitchen. The pathway to the pool has 5 stairs leading to the deck of the pool. Once you reach the gate to the pool entrance it is 28" inches wide. Finally there is no lift into the pool. Does the clubhouse and pool need to be accessible?
Solution:The common areas that qualify as places of public accommodation under the ADA must be designed and constructed in accordance with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, and the Act’s design and construction requirements. For example, a rental office in a multifamily residential development, a recreational area open to the public, or a convenience store located in that development would be covered by the Act and under Title III of the ADA. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Common use areas for use only by residents and their guests are covered by the Fair Housing Act’s design and construction requirements, but would not be covered by the ADA.
ROUTES TO COMMON AREAS
Scenario: A large multi-family complex was built in 1993. Within the complex a number of sidewalks lead to common areas and amenities. The sidewalks do not include curb cuts and there are many barriers on the pathway such as upheaveled concrete due to tree roots under the sidewalk. During the summer bushes and tree limbs encroach on the sidewalk. The property manager has stated that they are trying to keep the pathway in a natural setting. Do the pathways need to be accessible?
Solution: The pathways described above would not meet the Fair Housing Act standards. A route that complies with the appropriate requirements of ANSI A117.1-1986, a comparable standard, or Section 5, Requirement 1 of the Guidelines is an accessible route. See 24 C.F.R. § 100.201.
Exterior accessible routes must be pedestrian routes that are separate from the road or driveway. For example, according to the FHA regulations it is not acceptable to provide only a road or driveway as an accessible route. However, there is a vehicular route exception to the requirement to provide an accessible pedestrian route that, if met, may apply. See Guidelines, Requirement 1(5), Requirement 2, Chart, Element 1, 56 Fed. Reg. at 9,504, 9,505; Design Manual at 1.9. http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/index.cfm
Page 5 of 12
Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST: FAQ Link to publication on accessible routes http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/faq/accessibleroutes.html
DOG PARK
Scenario: A fenced-in dog park is located at a city owned multi-family apartment complex. The entrance to the dog park is not accessible or useable by individuals who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices. There are a number of barriers preventing access to the dog park for example no curb cuts on the sidewalk leading to the dog park. Another barrier identified at the dog park entrance is a grate that was installed to help reduce the mud bog at the entrance into the dog park. The grate has slots that are 1" wide and it has upheaveled making ground surface making it difficult to walk on. A person who uses a cane tripped on the grate and fell. What laws impact this housing development?
Solution: The Dog Park would fall under the Fair Housing Act and Title II of the ADA because it is owned by the city. To address the barrier install a curb cut to increase access to the entrance. In addition remove the grate and install a firm, stable material to increase access to the gate entrance. There are specific standards that a curb cut must meet please consult the 2010 ADA standards of design. The FHA regulations define an accessible route as a continuous unobstructed path connecting accessible elements and spaces in a building or within a site that can be negotiated by a person with a severe disability using a wheelchair, and that is also safe for and usable by people with other disabilities. Exterior accessible routes may include parking access aisles, curb ramps, walks, ramps and lifts.
COMMUNITY GARDEN AREA:
A community garden is available for tenants to use. A tenant who uses a wheelchair would like to garden and requested the use of a raised box. However at the front entrance where a gate opens into the garden the sidewalk ends and leads to a grassy area. A steep berm is located at the front of the gate entrance into the garden. Inside the garden area the raised boxes are surrounded by deep loose gravel. At the closed end of the garden a paved pathway is within 5 inches of the fence and there is no berm. However the garden can’t be accessed because of the pathway, berm and gravel surrounding the boxes. The raised boxes are a perfect height for a person who uses a wheelchair or has back problems. The property management company wants ideas on how to make the garden area accessible.
Solution: Add an accessible route to make the garden area accessible for tenants with mobility disabilities. An easy solution is to relocate the entrance to the garden or put a gate on both ends.One suggestion is to remove the gravel surrounding the raised boxes using natural materials that can be hard backed and a smooth surface. (Surfaces: Products: Products Directory: National Center on Accessibility: Indiana University Bloomington link to directoryhttp://www.ncaonline.org/products-directory/categories/surfaces/index.shtml)
Resources
ADA Quick Tips - Tax Incentives | ADA National Networkhttps://adata.org/factsheet/ada-quick-tips-tax-incentives
Page 6 of 12
2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Designhttp://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities Title III of the ADA (private and non-profit entities)http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Serviceshttp://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.htm
Federal Register | Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Federally Assisted Programs and Activities May 2014 HUD is issuing this document to permit recipients of Federal financial assistance from HUD (HUD recipients) to use an alternative accessibility standard for purposes of complying with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and HUD's implementing regulation at 24 CFR part 8(Section 504 regulation) until HUD formally revises its Section 504 regulation to adopt an updated accessibility standard. Consistent with DOJ's advice, this document provides HUD recipients the option of using the 2010 Standards under title II of the ADA, except for certain specific provisions identified in this document, as an alternative accessibility standard to UFAS for purposes of complying with Section 504 and HUD's Section 504 regulation for new construction and alterations commenced on or after May 23, 2014. Link to Rule https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/05/23/2014-11844/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-in-federally-assisted-programs-and-activities
Joint Statement between DOJ and HUD Guidance and Design and Construction April 30 2013 Link to document http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/documents/jointstatement_accessibility_4-30-13.pdf
This Joint Statement provides guidance regarding the persons, entities, and types of housing and related facilities that are subject to the accessible design and construction requirements of the Act (hereinafter, “design and construction requirements”). See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3). One of the types of disability discrimination prohibited by the Act is the failure to design and construct covered multifamily dwellings with certain features of accessible design. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f).
Department of Justice webpage Fair Housing Policy Statements and Guidance. Link to guidance: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/about_guidance.php
Reasonable Accommodations and Fair Housing May 2004http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/huddojstatement.pdf
Reasonable Modifications March 2008http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf
SECTION 504 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONShttp://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/sect504faq#anchor263905
This publication focuses on the requirements of one specific law, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. This law often is called simply "Section 504.” Section 504 is not the only
Page 7 of 12
law that prohibits disability discrimination in programs receiving HUD funds or financial assistance. Other Federal laws that provide nondiscrimination on the basis of disability include the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act.
Section 504 Compliance Memo from HUD 2004http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/504compliance.pdf
Parking 2010 ADA Accessible Design Requirements. Here is a link to a 2010 parking requirements. http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm#titleIII
People First Language Link to publication produced by the Idaho Council on Development Disabilities. http://icdd.idaho.gov/pdf/Brochures/People%20First%20Language%20English.pdf
Statement from HUD on Service Animals and Assistance animals April 2013 Link to statement http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=servanimals_ntcfheo2013-01.pdf
Civil Rights Division Housing Section Recent Settlement Agreements 2015-2014Link to DOJ Website: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/whatnew.php
"Design and Construction" Cases:
• On February 4, 2015, the court entered a final partial consent decree in United States v. Related Companies (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, which was filed on March 17, 2014 against the designers and developers of One Carnegie Hill Apartments and Tribeca Green Apartments in New York City, alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to design and construct these properties to be accessible to persons with disabilities. This decree resolves the litigation with respect to the architects, and requires payments to aggrieved persons of up to $32,000, and payment of a $32,000 civil penalty to the United States. An earlier consent decree with the developers and builders provided for the retrofitting of public and common use areas and dwelling units, a settlement fund of $825,000 for payments to aggrieved persons and $100,000 in civil penalties
• On November 13, 2014, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Equal Rights Center v. Equity Residential(D. Md.), arguing that 1) violations of the HUD Fair Housing Amendments Act Guidelines establish a prima facie case that the Act's design and construction provisions have been violated, which may be overcome only by showing compliance with a comparable, objective
Page 8 of 12
accessibility standard; and 2) the failure to design and construct accessible multifamily housing is a discrete violation of the Fair Housing Act.
• On November 13, 2014, the court entered a partial consent decree resolving claims against two of the defendants in United States v. Noble Homes (N.D. Ohio). The complaint, which was filed on December 2, 2013, and amended on May 14, 2014, alleges that the defendants failed to design and construct two neighboring condominium complexes in Hartsville, Ohio with the accessibility features required by the Fair Housing Act. One of the defendants was responsible for building one of the fourteen covered buildings at issue, and that building had less severe accessibility violations than were present at the other covered buildings. Pursuant to the decree, this defendant, who is no longer in the business of building multifamily housing, will pay $5,000 into a fund available for retrofits and a $2,500 civil penalty.
• On October 7, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Nistler (D. Mont.). The complaint, filed on September 12, 2013, alleged that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act when they designed and constructed an eight-unit apartment building in Helena, Montana without the accessibility features required by the Act. The consent decree provides for retrofits to exteriors, public and common use areas, and unit interiors at that property, and two additional eight-unit apartment properties currently owned by the defendants; $17,500 to Montana Fair Housing, which brought the original HUD complaint and intervened in the suit; an $8,500 civil penalty; and training, reporting, and other injunctive relief.
• On September 29, 2014, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Biafora's Inc. (N.D. W. Va.), alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act through the design and construction of twenty-three residential properties in West Virginia and Pennsylvania with steps, insufficient maneuvering space, excessive slopes, and other barriers for persons with disabilities.
• On September 29, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. Pauley (S.D. W. Va.). The complaint>, which was filed on December 18, 2013, alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by building multi-family housing developments with features that made them inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The consent decree requires the defendants to pay $110,000 and to make all retrofits required to remove accessibility barriers at 30 apartment complexes throughout the state of West Virginia.
• On August 11, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Tower 31 LLC, Atlantic 31st LLC, Costas Kondylis & Partners LLP & Alan L. Goldstein (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on August 5, 2014 by the United States Attorney's Office, alleged that the defendants failed to design and construct the Tower 31 apartment building in New York City in compliance with the Fair Housing Act's accessibility guidelines. The consent decree with developers Tower 31 LLC and Atlantic 31st LLC requires them to perform retrofits of certain noncompliant features in the public and common-use areas and in the dwelling units of Tower 31 and to pay at least $100,000, and up to $300,000, to compensate persons aggrieved by the alleged discriminatory housing practices at Tower 31, as well as a civil penalty of $35,000. Litigation will proceed against architect-designers Costas Kondylis & Partners LLP, and Alan L. Goldstein.
• On June 5, 2014, the court entered a consent decree in United States v. 2 Gold, LLC (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint, filed on April 23, 2013 by the United States Attorney's Office, alleged that the
Page 9 of 12
defendants failed to design and construct a residential apartment complex in New York City to be accessible to persons with disabilities. This decree resolves the litigation with respect to the architects. A previous decree, entered April 24, 2013, resolved the claims against the developers. This decree provides for standard injunctive relief, review of the architects' future designs by a qualified compliance reviewer, a civil penalty of $35,000 and a fund of $45,000 for payments to aggrieved persons.
• On May 23, 2014, the Division filed a complaintin United States v. Dawn Properties, Inc. (S.D. Miss.) for failure to design and construct multi-family dwellings in a manner accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• On April 16, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. The Durst Organization (S.D.N.Y.), against the designers and developers of The Helena, an apartment building in New York City. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to design and construct the property so as to be accessible to persons with disabilities
Disability Discrimination
• On December 23, 2014, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Andover Forest Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. (E.D. Ky.), alleging that a 481-member homeowners association in Lexington, Kentucky and its management company violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow the parents of a child with cerebral palsy to keep a specially designed playhouse on their property that was needed for their child's occupational and physical therapy.
• On November 20, 2014, the Division filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Westfield Partners (E.D. Pa.), alleging that defendants refused a request by a tenant who used a wheelchair and lived on the second floor to transfer to a first-floor unit when elevator renovations would leave tenants without an elevator for at least six weeks.
• On November 7, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Avatar Properties, Inc. (D. N.H.), alleging that a condominium complex in Londonderry, New Hampshire refused to assign an accessible parking space to a resident with a spinal cord injury.
• On November 6, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office filed a complaint in United States v. Westminster Asset Corp. (C.D. Cal.), alleging that the owner and managers of a 312-unit apartment building in Westminster, California refused to rent a unit to a woman because she used an electric mobility scooter and engaged in a pattern of practice or practice of disability discrimination.
• On November 3, 2014, the court entered the consent decree in United States v. Barber (W.D. Wash.). The complaint, which was filed on July 1, 2013, alleges that defendants discriminated against the HUD complainant by refusing to waive the pet deposit for her emotional support animal, which ameliorated the symptoms of her disability. The consent decree requires defendants to pay $20,000 to the HUD complainant and $5,000 to the United States, and to adopt a reasonable accommodation policy and receive fair housing training.
Page 10 of 12
• On October 6, 2014, the Division filed a complaint in United States v. Katz (D. Mont.) against the owner and manager of rental apartments in Bozeman, alleging that they charged a $1,000 pet deposit for a service animal owned by a tenant with a traumatic brain injury, despite being requested to waive the deposit as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Fair Housing Act. The complaint also alleges that defendant Katz threatened to evict the tenant for seeking the return of the deposit, and to charge her $100 an hour for time spent responding to allegations of discrimination. The complaint was also filed on behalf of the Montana Fair Housing, which assisted the complainant in dealing with the defendants.
• On September 8, 2014 the Division filed a Fair Housing Act complaint in United States v. Kent State University (N.D. Ohio), alleging that Kent State University, its Board of Trustees, and four individual university officials violated the FHA by refusing to grant reasonable accommodations for students needing to live with assistance animals.
• On August 20, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City Rescue Mission(W.D. Pa). The complaint, which was filed on June 28, 2013, alleged a pattern or practice of FHA and ADA violations, including that the defendants discriminated on the basis of disability by refusing to allow the HUD complainant to stay in the homeless shelter with his guide dog. The consent decree requires the defendants to obtain civil rights training and to adopt a new reasonable accommodation policy, including allowing occupants with assistance animals to reside anywhere in the shelter, not just in the infirmary. The decree also contains a $5,000 civil penalty and refers to a separate monetary agreement between the HUD complainant and the defendants.
• On July 30, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. LCW Family Limited Partnership (D. Neb.), requiring the defendants to adopt a reasonable accommodation and service animal policy, pay $8,000 to the aggrieved person, and pay a $1,000 in a civil penalty to the United States. The Fair Housing Act complaint, filed on November 25, 2013, alleged discrimination against people who use assistance animals at an apartment complex outside Omaha, Nebraska.
• On June 5, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. Gulf Shores Apts (S.D. Ala.). The consent order includes $90,000 in monetary damages and attorney's fees for the HUD complainant, who intervened in the case, as well as injunctive relief. The complaint, which was filed on October 30, 2013, alleged that the owners and managers of a 50-unit apartment complex in Gulf Shores, Alabama discriminated against a woman with a seizure disorder, limited mobility and mental disabilities on the basis of disability and sex.
• On May 28, 2014, the court entered a consent order in United States v. The Whitacres, LLC (N.D. W. Va.), a case referred by HUD. The consent order provides for $10,000 for the complainants and several injunctive measures. The complaint, which was filed on November 14, 2013, alleged that the manager of The Whitacres Mobile Home Community discriminated against the HUD complainants by attempting multiple evictions after they made an accommodation request for an emotional assistance animal.
• On April 19, 2013, the court granted the United States' motion for partial summary judgment and ruled that the University's student housing, including apartments and traditional dormitories, are dwellings covered by the Fair Housing Act in United States v. Univ. of Nebraska (D. Neb.). The complaint, filed on November 23, 2011, alleges that the University of Nebraska at Kearney violated the Fair Housing Act on the basis of disability by denying a reasonable accommodation
Page 11 of 12
request by a student with a mental disability to live with her assistance animal in off-campus student apartments. The University had argued that student housing is not covered by the Fair Housing Act.
Page 12 of 12