Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/2016

Home

June 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 12 Zoning Bulletin application. SBS alleged that the City's refusal to approve its PDD ap- plication constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of SBS's clients' mental disabilities in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Under the FHA, it is unlawful "[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap." (42 U.S.C.A § 3604(f)(1).) The FHA further provides that it is unlawful to "discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwell- ing, because of a handicap." 42 U.S.C.A § 3604(f)(2).) Similarly, the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." (42 U.S.C.A § 12132.) Both the FHA and the ADA apply to municipal zoning decisions. To establish discrimination under either the FHA or the ADA, plaintiffs (i.e., the party bringing the legal action, alleging discrimina- tion) have three available theories: (1) intentional discrimination (disparate treatment); (2) disparate impact; and (3) failure to make a reasonable accommodation. Here, SBS alleged both intentional discrimination and disparate treatment. More specifically, SBS alleged that the City denied its PDD applica- tion due to disparate treatment, or intentional discrimination, against its disabled clients. SBS specifically contended that the City violated the FHA and the ADA by: (1) allowing the prejudices of members of its community to influence its decisionmaking process; and (2) applying different procedural and substantive criteria to SBS's application than the criteria used to evaluate other similarly situated PDD applications. The City denied the allegations. DECISION: Motion for preliminary injunction of Step by Step granted. The United States District Court, N.D. New York, granted SBS's motion for preliminary injunction, finding that SBS had established: the necessary elements required for such injunctive relief; and the ne- cessity that "equitable powers . . . be exercised to prevent the City from continuing discriminatory action against SBS." The court concluded that SBS established the necessary elements for the injunctive relief sought by SBS through: (1) a showing of substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its intentional discrimination claim; and (2) a showing that it would suffer irreparable halm if injunc- tive relief were not granted. In its decision, the court rejected SBS's specific theories of inten- 10 ©2016 Thomson Reuters