In September 2022, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") charged Aqua 388 Community Association ("Association") and its management company with disability discrimination for denying a homeowner, Dr. Emma Adams, a permanent parking space to accommodate her wheelchair-accessible van. The case proceeded to the United States District Court.
On April 3, 2023, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of Dr. Adams, in US v. Aqua 388 Community Association, alleging that the Association and its management company ("Defendants") violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) and § 3604(f)(3)(B), by refusing to provide Dr. Adams, who has paraplegia, a reserved accessible parking space for over three years.
On October 6, 2023, the court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the United States. To avoid prolonged litigation, the parties agreed to settle, resulting in a consent decree entered by the court on January 22, 2024. The consent decree required the defendants to implement new reasonable accommodation policies, provide fair housing training to employees, and assign Dr. Adams a properly marked accessible parking space for the duration of her residency.
HUD and the court found that Dr. Adams' disability and need for accessible parking were evident, yet the Association repeatedly denied her requests for accommodation by refusing to assign her a permanent parking space to accommodate her wheelchair-accessible van. Dr. Adams required eight feet of clearance on the passenger side of her van to deploy the ramp for entry and exit, which was not feasible in her originally assigned, nonaccessible parking space when adjacent spaces were occupied.
The Association had 19 parking spaces designated for persons with disabilities, available to residents on a first-come, first-served basis. Four of these spaces are wide enough to accommodate Dr. Adams' request. Instead of assigning one of these spaces to Dr. Adams, the Association enforced stricter parking rules and, through counsel, allegedly informed Dr. Adams: "[T]here does not appear to be any nexus between the accommodation you have requested and your disability. While clearly your mobility is impaired, you use a power wheelchair, so proximity is not an issue." Furthermore, her requests were denied allegedly on the basis that it would give her unfair priority over other residents with disabilities.
After six requests for a reasonable accommodation over three years, the Association eventually assigned Dr. Adams a van-accessible parking space; however, this assignment came after a fair housing complaint had been filed with HUD.
Key takeaways from this case for Association and property management professionals:
1. Rigid policies that do not consider individual circumstances can lead to fair housing violations.
2. Effective communication is essential for addressing residents' needs.
3. Accessibility requirements vary significantly. In Dr. Adams' case, her need for a van-accessible space posed unique challenges.
4. Proactive measures must be carefully evaluated to meet residents' specific needs.
This case underscores the complexity of fair housing and accessibility issues, emphasizing the importance of balancing policies with empathy, communication, and understanding of residents' needs. While not obligated to fulfill every request, associations must provide reasonable accommodations for disabled residents whenever feasible unless there are legal reasons not to. Contesting such cases can be costly and time-consuming, making proactive accommodation efforts essential. Associations and management should notify and engage with legal counsel whenever you receive a request for reasonable accommodation.
