Contact Us 619-589-8800


Smoking Ban Not a Reasonable Accommodation

Posted by Joel Kriger | May 19, 2020 | 0 Comments

In 2004, Phyllis Davis purchased a unit on the second floor of a four-unit building. She was a cancer survivor with a history of asthma and claimed that cigarette smoke from the unit below significantly impacted her ability to breathe comfortably. She requested help from the Association's board of directors. The board made efforts to mitigate the transmission of secondhand smoke but had no power to ban smoking as it was not prohibited in the Association's governing documents.

The efforts by the board to seal openings in cracks, doors and vents to prevent the transmission of smoke along with the installation of an air filter were insufficient to satisfy Ms. Davis. She requested a “reasonable accommodation” in the Association rules to implement a smoking ban in her building. The Association refused to institute a smoking ban based upon its understanding that it had no power to do so as smoking was permitted under the existing rules.

Davis sued the Association alleging that its refusal to ban smoking in her building discriminated against her because of her health issues and was in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. The court sided with the Association and ruled that implementing a smoking ban would constitute a fundamental change in Association policy versus a moderate adjustment to a policy. This is the test applied when a request for a “reasonable accommodation” is made.  Implementation of the smoking ban was considered a fundamental change in policy because of the significant interference with the rights of other smoking residents in the building who relied on the existing rules that allowed smoking in their units at the time of purchase.

It is our opinion that the result in this case (Davis v. Echo Valley Condominium Association (2019) 945 F.3d 483) may have been different had the Association rules contained some limitation or power of the board to control the transmission of secondhand smoke. In general, we do not recommend clients impose a complete ban on smoking but instead address the issue of transmission of secondhand smoke by adopting CC&R provisions that empower the board to deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis, including the ability to require the residents of the offending unit to modify smoking behavior or cease smoking in the unit altogether if other alternatives have failed to resolve the problem.

About the Author

Joel Kriger

Owner Practice Areas: Community Association Counsel Joel M. Kriger is the founder of Kriger Law Firm. A native of Pennsylvania, Joel graduated from Temple University in 1970 and moved to San Diego to attend the University of San Diego School of Law, from which he graduated in 1973. Joel maintai...


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Comments have been disabled.


Kriger Law Firm is committed to answering your questions about Community Association General Counsel, Governing Document Revisions, Alternative Dispute Resolution, CC & R Enforcement Litigation, and Common Interest Development law issues in California.

We'll gladly discuss your case with you at your convenience. Contact us today to schedule an appointment.

The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational use only. They are in no way intended to constitute legal advice or the opinions of this law firm or any of its attorneys. You should not act or rely upon any information appearing on this website without seeking the advice of an attorney. Also, because the law is continually changing, the materials appearing on this website are not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date.

Transmission and receipt of the information on the Kriger Law Firm website are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, nor will the act of sending an e-mail to attorneys at Kriger Law Firm create an attorney-client relationship. Thus, we strongly advise against sending confidential or privileged information to us until you can establish such a relationship. Furthermore, we advise against sending privileged or confidential information through e-mail since we can in no way ensure the security of your e-mail.

Some jurisdictions would consider the materials appearing on this website to constitute advertising. The decision to hire a lawyer should not be based on the written information appearing on this website about the qualifications and experience of this firm and its members.

Links that may appear on this site are intended solely for your convenience in identifying and accessing other sources of information and are not to be construed as being endorsed by or affiliated with our office. Furthermore, Kriger Law Firm does not imply that it is legally authorized to use any trade name, registered trademark, symbol, logo, or seal that may be reflected in any of these links. Kriger Law Firm has sought to comply with all legal and ethical requirements in creating this website. Kriger Law Firm in no way seeks to use this website in any way as to represent anyone in a state where this site may fail to comply with the laws and ethical requirements of that state.