United States Eleventh Circuit

In a claim brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) alleging that defendant-city's occupancy-turnover rule against plaintiff-halfway houses amounted to disparate treatment, disparate impact, and a failure to reasonably accommodate the disabled, summary judgment in favor of defendant-city is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) plaintiffs presented no evidence of differential treatment of the handicapped or of disparate impact on the handicapped; 2) requiring defendant-city to allow high turnover at the properties located within the specified zones would not be a "reasonable" accommodation; and 3) a genuine issue of material fact may exist about whether living in the halfway houses was "necessary" to afford recovering substance abusers an "equal opportunity to use and enjoy" the halfway houses.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/08/2008
• Published 10/08/2008

Judges

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel