Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. - 884 A.2d 1109 (D.C. 2005)

Rule:

Under the federal Fair Housing Act, a tenant's failure to make clear in her initial request what type of accommodation she is requesting is not fatal. According to applicable case law, including an administrative adjudication by the Department of Housing and Urban Development itself, once the tenant requests a "reasonable accommodation" (or, without using those exact words, requests an accommodation for a disability) the landlord is obliged under the Act to respond promptly. If the request is not sufficiently detailed to reveal the nature of that request, the Act - as properly interpreted - requires the landlord to "open a dialogue" with the tenant, eliciting more information as needed, to determine what specifics the tenant has in mind and whether such accommodation would, in fact, be reasonable under the circumstances. Any delay from the landlord's failure to respond promptly to the tenant's request may become the landlord's responsibility.

Facts:

The tenant received federal Supplemental Security Income benefits and was eligible for federally subsidized "Section 8" housing. The landlord presented evidence that the tenant's apartment was unkept and unclean. The trial court ruled that the tenant could not present a "reasonable accommodation" defense under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), and a jury found for the landlord in its action for a lease violation. The tenant was subsequently evicted. The tenant appealed from the trial court's ruling that barred her defense and from the court's order upon the jury verdict that resulted in her eviction.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in denying a tenant the opportunity to defend her landlord's action for possession by claiming discrimination - namely, the landlord's failure to provide a "reasonable accommodation" - based on her alleged "handicap" (mental impairment)?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The appeals court found that in denying the very possibility of an effective accommodation on the facts, the trial court ruled prematurely that the "health and safety" exception barred the tenant's defense. The court considered the factors required for a reasonable accommodation defense, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to find that (1) the landlord defaulted on its legal obligation to engage the tenant in a discussion of her request for a reasonable accommodation, and that (2) the landlord refused to grant the requested accommodation, which the landlord clearly understood and which, if implemented, would have cured the tenant's default and prevented it from recurring.