Summary
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association that refused to waive a restrictive covenant for a proposed assisted living facility. The appellate court holds that the district court erred by analyzing whether removing the association’s disputed conditions was necessary, rather than whether the requested exemption itself was necessary under the Fair Housing Act. Finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the accommodation and the association’s motives, the court vacates the judgment and remands for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court applied the wrong necessity inquiry to the plaintiffs' Fair Housing Act and Maryland reasonable-accommodation claims by examining whether removal of the Corporation's proposed conditions, rather than the requested exemption from the business-purpose covenant, was necessary.
- Whether the reasonableness of the requested exemption and the burdens associated with the Corporation's four conditions presented genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment.
- Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that the Corporation took adverse action in retaliation for protected advocacy concerning housing rights of persons with disabilities.
- Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to infer intentional disability discrimination from the Corporation's stated rationales, community opposition, and allegedly pretextual conditions.
Holdings
- The district court erred by analyzing whether removal of the Corporation's four proposed conditions was necessary. The proper question was whether the requested exemption from the business-purpose covenant was necessary to provide prospective residents with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.
- The reasonableness of the requested exemption was a fact-specific jury question. The Corporation was not entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find either that the four conditions addressed legitimate burdens or that they were unnecessary and intended to burden the project.
- The plaintiffs' retaliation claims could not be resolved on summary judgment. The record permitted a reasonable jury to find that the Corporation's efforts to revoke or delay the project, its refusal to approve the accommodation, and related conduct were adverse actions causally connected to protected advocacy for housing rights of persons with disabilities.
- The plaintiffs' disability-discrimination claims presented jury questions. The evidence, viewed in the plaintiffs' favor, could support an inference that the Corporation's stated environmental and litigation-related reasons were pretextual and that opposition to the proposed facility was motivated in part by hostility toward elderly residents with disabilities.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the record here is not sufficiently “one-sided” for either party to prevail on summary judgment.” (11)
“That turns the FHA’s “necessity” analysis upside down.” (14)
“Under these circumstances, the necessity inquiry is straightforward: The requested exemption from the business-purpose covenant is “necessary” because without it, Lussi will not be able to operate what would be the only facility that would allow elderly and disabled people an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.” (15)
“The only thing we hold today is that on the sprawling record before us, there are two sides to this story, not one, making summary judgment inappropriate.” (26)
Factual background
Craig Lussi, a Gibson Island homeowner who operated assisted-living group homes for seniors with disabilities elsewhere in Anne Arundel County, sought to open an assisted-living facility in a home he purchased on Gibson Island. Gibson Island Corporation opposed the project and invoked a business-purpose covenant requiring approval for business uses, while also seeking regulatory and permitting obstacles. Lussi requested an exemption from the covenant as a reasonable accommodation, but the Corporation conditioned approval on four disputed requirements involving septic monitoring, dispute resolution, an arbitration escrow, and guarantees by related entities; negotiations ended when the parties could not agree.
Procedural history
Gibson Island Corporation initially obtained declaratory relief in an earlier federal action establishing that its business-purpose covenant was enforceable and requiring Lussi to request an exemption before proceeding with the proposed group home. After Lussi formally requested an exemption and negotiations over conditions failed, the plaintiffs filed the operative action. The district court granted the Corporation summary judgment on all claims, and the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Remand instructions
Vacate the district court's summary judgment for Gibson Island Corporation and remand for further proceedings, including a jury determination of the reasonableness of the requested accommodation and the plaintiffs' retaliation and discrimination claims. The court noted that different burdens of persuasion apply to the federal and Maryland reasonable-accommodation claims.