Shasta Partee, on behalf of herself and all other occupants v. Powers Properties

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted Powers Properties’ motion for summary judgment. The court rejected claims under the Fair Housing Act for failure to accommodate and retaliation, as well as claims for breach of contract, constructive eviction, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was proper because Partee failed to establish that Powers Properties knew or reasonably should have known of Naeem's disability when it issued the non-renewal notice, and her later requests did not identify a reasonable accommodation that directly ameliorated the effects of his disability or was necessary to provide equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling.
2. The direct-threat exception to the Fair Housing Act supported Powers Properties' refusal to continue the tenancy because objective evidence showed that Naeem posed a direct threat to persons or property.
3. The court declined to impose an informal interactive-process requirement on landlords and tenants under the Fair Housing Act because the Fourth Circuit had not adopted such a requirement and other circuits had held that the FHA lacks one.
4. Summary judgment was proper on the retaliation claim because Partee failed to show that Powers Properties' stated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual and the nine-month interval between the protected activity and later alleged retaliatory conduct was insufficient by itself to establish causation.
5. Summary judgment was proper on the breach of contract claim because Partee identified no evidence supporting the alleged failures involving smoke detectors, sprinklers, electrical safety, or fire extinguishers.
6. The fourteen-day notice-to-cure provision did not apply because Powers Properties issued a notice of non-renewal at the end of the lease term rather than a notice seeking to remedy a tenant's breach.
7. Partee could not establish constructive eviction because her twenty-one-month delay in moving out did not constitute abandonment within a reasonable time.
8. Summary judgment was proper on the IIED claim because Partee failed to provide evidence that Powers Properties' conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous, and the court determines in the first instance whether conduct meets that threshold.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Partee's Fair Housing Act failure-to-accommodate claim.
2. Whether the Fair Housing Act's direct-threat exception independently supported Powers Properties' refusal to continue the tenancy.
3. Whether the Fair Housing Act requires a landlord to engage in an informal interactive process regarding a requested accommodation.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on Partee's Fair Housing Act retaliation claim.
5. Whether summary judgment was proper on Partee's breach of contract claim based on alleged habitability violations and the absence of a fourteen-day notice to cure.
6. Whether Partee abandoned the premises within a reasonable time so as to support a constructive eviction claim.
7. Whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Disposition

dismissed