Court Decision Affirms "Necessity Standard" for Reasonable Accommodations

person A.J. Johnson today 11/27/2021

In Carter v. Murray, 2021, WL 4192055, CIVIL ACTION NO 21-3289 (E.D. PA, September 14, 2021), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that a tenant was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation of permanent relocation to a unit that was free of carpet fumes and tobacco smoke since the landlord had offered a temporary relocation while repairs were made to remove the offending carpet from the unit. The landlord had also promised to adopt a smoke-free policy for the apartment complex.

The suit was brought by Reginald Carter, a resident at Venango House, an apartment building in Philadelphia.  Prior to moving in in August 2018, Carter discovered that the apartment was newly carpeted and painted. Because of his lung disease, he asked management to remove the carpet. He was told this could not be done but was offered an uncarpeted apartment in the building.  He accepted the apartment, but because the linoleum floors and adhesives were also releasing toxins, he did not move in until October to allow the paint to off-gas. He was also unhappy with dust and parts of an unfinished wall.

On May 15, 2019, Carter wrote a letter to the manager, Donna Murray, expressing concerns about the smoking of a fellow resident who smoked and used deodorizers to mask the smell. He requested to be moved out of his unit to allow for repainting and floor replacement.  On June 4, 2019, a tenants’ council meeting was held to address Carter’s issues. Carter’s lung problems were not brought up at the meeting, but the Council did ask the manager if smoking was going to be prohibited.

On December 17, 2019, Carter wrote another letter to Murray in which he stated that he would not allow a contractor to paint his door because of COPD lung disease. He asked that the painting be put on hold until such time as tenants with lung disease could seek exemptions from having their doors painted. The painting was stopped, but no one at the property was asked if they wanted an exemption from the painting of the doors.

On January 28, 2020, Carter alleged that an environmental hazard was caused by the improper removal of carpet adhesive in the hallways. He alleged that he was hospitalized twice in 2020 because he "could not walk a block without getting chest, neck, and face pains." He claimed that the "stress of living at the Venango House was a major contributing factor," and that cigar and cigarette smoke from other tenants intensified his breathing problems.

In January 2021, Carter emailed Murray and a representative of the management company (Winn Companies) that the smell of paint and new carpeting made his symptoms worse. He complained in February 2021 of cigar smell in his apartment and claimed that due to the racial makeup of the tenancy at Venango House and the fact that management failed to provide 24-hour security and had no central air in the hallways, what was occurring amounted to "murder and institutional racism."

On February 22, 2021, Andrew Lund, the Office Manager and Regional Vice-President of the management company, contacted Carter by email about current issues. Carter replied that the smoking issues remained and that he needed permanent relocation instead of a temporary stay at a hotel while repairs were conducted. He alleged that his relocation request was ignored from May 15, 2019 to March of 2021.

Carter filed a claim against Lund, Murray and others, alleging constitutional claims for violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and state law claims. He requested an order requiring the Winn Companies to relocate him to a place of his choosing at Winn’s expense, to remove certain individuals from the tenant council, and to reinstate him as council president. He also sought an order directing the Winn Companies to evict a member of the tenant council with whom Carter had a dispute and to immediately disallow smoking at Venango House

The Court dismissed all the constitutional claims. The court also ruled that Carter pleaded no plausible FHA claim for disability. The FHA protects against discrimination based on disability. To state a reasonable accommodation discrimination claim, the plaintiff must plead facts showing (1)accommodations are necessary to afford him equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) the defendant refused to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services. In support of this, the Court cited Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia Owners Association, (a case that those who have taken my fair housing training in 2021 may be familiar with). As stated in Vorcheimer, the element of necessity "requires that an accommodation be essential, not just preferable." A plaintiff must "establish a nexus between the accommodations that he or she is requesting and their necessity for providing handicapped individuals an ‘equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing."

The court went on to explain that even if Carter’s medical conditions qualified as a disability under the FHA, it did not provide facts alleging the statutory elements of a failure to accommodate claim. In fact, the claim stated that Murray and Lund attempted to resolve Carter’s complaints by meeting with Carter and offering relocation to an uncarpeted apartment, and the opportunity to move into a hotel while his floors were refinished. Moreover, Murray and Lund sent Carter an email on March 5, 2021, stating that Venango House would "work toward implementing a smoke-free policy."  Thus,  the defendants addressed his requests and Carter provided no facts demonstrating a failure to accommodate. For this reason, the court found Carter’s disability discrimination claim was not plausible and was dismissed without prejudice. This means that if Carter can address the weaknesses in his case, he may bring it forward again.

This case provides another example of fair housing claims relating to reasonable accommodation requests being dismissed when landlords make legitimate offers to meet the requirements relating to the disability - even if the offers do not match the specific demands of the plaintiff.

Latest Articles

Impact of Trump Administration's Regulatory Restructuring on HUD and IRS

The Trump administration's recent executive order on federal regulations, "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative," signals significant changes for federal agencies. The order has particularly notable implications for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The New Regulatory Framework On February 19, 2025, President Trump signed this executive order as part of a broader deregulatory agenda aimed at reducing what the administration views as bureaucratic overreach. The directive mandates that federal agencies conduct a comprehensive 60-day review of their regulatory frameworks to ensure alignment with both legal requirements and administration policies. The order targets explicitly regulations considered: Unconstitutional Based on improper delegations of legislative power Imposing excessive costs without clear public benefits Harmful to national interests Hindering development across various sectors This order is part of a series of regulatory rollbacks, including directives like "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" and "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," which expand upon the administration's previous deregulatory efforts. Specific Impacts on the IRS The IRS faces several significant challenges under this new directive: Continued Hiring Freeze: The executive order maintains an existing hiring freeze at the IRS, which will remain in effect until the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director, determines that lifting it serves the national interest. Increased White House Oversight: IRS regulations will once again be subject to White House review through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), reinstating a policy from Trump's first term that adds another layer of scrutiny to IRS rulemaking. "10-for-1" Deregulation Mandate: The IRS must eliminate ten existing guidance documents for every new rule or guidance it issues, significantly constraining its ability to update tax regulations and provide new guidance. These measures could substantially impact the IRS's capacity to uphold compliance and maintain operational efficiency, potentially affecting tax administration and enforcement nationwide. Implications for HUD For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the executive order brings equally significant changes: Comprehensive Program Review: The order requires a review of hundreds of HUD programs, potentially leading to significant restructuring or budget cuts. Grant Funding Uncertainty: Although a federal court temporarily blocked a separate memo seeking to freeze federal grants, the administration's intent to reassess HUD funding remains evident. "10-for-1" Rule Application: Like the IRS, HUD must adhere to the requirement of eliminating ten existing regulations for every new one proposed, which could significantly impact housing policy implementation and program management. These changes may affect HUD's ability to administer housing assistance programs, enforce fair housing regulations, and support community development initiatives. Legal and Procedural Challenges The administration's deregulatory push faces potential legal obstacles: Agencies seeking to rescind or modify rules must generally follow a new rulemaking process, including issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, collecting public comments, and finalizing the new rule. Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements could expose regulatory rollbacks to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making when modifying or rescinding regulations, and courts may overturn agency decisions if this standard is not met. Outlook As the 60-day review period progresses, the IRS and HUD must navigate competing demands: implementing the administration's deregulatory agenda while maintaining their core functions and avoiding legal challenges. The outcome will likely reshape how these agencies operate and could have lasting implications for the United States s tax administration and housing policy. The full impact of these changes will become more evident as agencies determine which regulations to target and how to implement the administration's directives while fulfilling their statutory obligations.

Understanding the HOTMA Educational Assistance Rules

Under the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA), specific rules govern how educational assistance is treated as income for Section 8 residents. HOTMA Educational Assistance Rule Overview HOTMA clarified and simplified the treatment of educational assistance in determining a household s income for many affordable housing programs, including most HUD programs, Rural Development Section 515, and the LIHTC program. Under the HOTMA rule: Exclusion of Educational Assistance:Most forms of educational assistance, including scholarships, grants, and work-study income, are excluded from the calculation of annual income. This exclusion applies to both the student and other household members. Limited Exceptions:The only types of educational assistance that may be counted as income are: Amounts exceeding the actual tuition cost, fees, books, and other required educational expenses. Payments for living expenses (e.g., housing, food, and transportation) that are included in the educational assistance package. Student Status and Eligibility: The rule applies to both dependent students and independent students. The educational assistance exclusion is broader for students under Section 8 over 23 with dependent children and generally includes all aid except for amounts used for living expenses. HOTMA s goal in modifying these rules was to reduce administrative complexity and ensure that educational aid meant to support academic success does not create a financial penalty for low-income families participating in HUD programs. Amounts Received Under Section 479B of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 Educational assistance received under the Higher Education Act is almost always excluded from income even if it exceeds the cost of actual educational expenses. The one exception is for Section 8 residents, where the full amount of educational assistance in excess of actual expenses is included in income. The one exception to this is for Section 8 residents over age 23 with dependent children. HEA assistance is always excluded for this category of resident, as it is for residents in all other affordable housing programs subject to HOTMA. Section 479B provides that certain types of student financial assistance are excluded in determining eligibility for benefits made available through federal, state, or local programs financed with federal funds. The types of financial assistance listed below are considered 479B student financial assistance programs. Federal Pell Grants Teach Grants Federal Work-Study Programs Federal Perkins Grants Student Financial Assistance received under the Bureau of Indian Education Higher Education Tribal Grants Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities Grant Program Employment Training Program under Section 134 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Any other awards under Section 479B Other student financial assistance may also be excluded from income, but only to the extent it pays for actual educational expenses. Such assistance includes grants or scholarships from the following sources: Federal government A State (including U.S. territories), Tribe, or local government A private foundation registered as a non-profit under 26 USC 501(c)(3) A business entity (such as a corporation, general partnership, limited liability company, limited partnership, joint venture, business trust, public benefit corporation, or non-profit entity). An institution of higher education Military assistance (e.g., GI Bill) Other monetary contributions will generally not be excluded from income, and may include - Financial support provided to a student in the form of a fee for services performed (e.g., work-study or teaching fellowship) that is not excluded under Section 479B of the HEA. Gifts, including gifts from family or friends. Covered Costs Costs that may be considered educational expenses include: Tuition Books Supplies Room Board Fees required and charged to a student by an institution of higher education. Property managers operating properties subject to HOTMA need to be familiar with the various types of financial assistance students will likely receive and whether or not such assistance may be excluded from income. Bottom Line The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) streamlines the treatment of educational assistance as income for residents receiving housing support, such as Section 8. In general, most forms of educational assistance, including scholarships and grants, are excluded from income calculations for both the student and their household members. There are limited exceptions, which include amounts that exceed tuition costs and payments designated for living expenses. This rule applies to both dependent and independent students, with more extensive exclusions for Section 8 students over 23 who have dependents. HOTMA seeks to reduce administrative burdens and ensure that educational aid does not financially penalize low-income families.

Executive Order Establishes English as Official U.S. Language: Impact on HUD Programs

President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on March 1, 2025, establishing English as the official language of the United States. This move has significant implications for federal agencies and their communication policies, especially for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Rural Development properties. Key Changes The Executive Order revokes Executive Order 13166, issued on August 11, 2000. That previous order mandated federal agencies, including HUD, to implement Limited English Proficiency (LEP) policies for their programs. Under the previous order, agencies were required to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency could access their services. With the revocation, HUD will no longer mandate LEP policies for owners and Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) in HUD-assisted properties. Current Status and Recommendations It's important to note that the new Executive Order does not prohibit federal agencies from producing documents in languages besides English. However, they will no longer be legally obligated to do so. No immediate action is necessary for HUD and Rural Development property owners and managers who currently have LEP policies in place. I recommend maintaining current policies until formal guidance is issued. Both HUD and Rural Development are expected to provide official guidance on this change in the coming weeks or months. Project operators are advised to await this guidance before implementing any changes to their existing language access policies. Looking Ahead This policy shift signifies a substantial change in federal language requirements. Housing providers should remain informed about upcoming agency guidance that will clarify expectations and requirements going forward. Once formal guidance is released, property managers and owners should consult with their industry associations and legal advisors to ensure compliance. This article offers informational content based on current developments and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Property owners and managers should seek guidance from qualified legal professionals regarding specific compliance issues.

HUD Extends NSPIRE Affirmative Standards Compliance Deadline to October 2025

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development s (HUD) Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) has announced an extension of the compliance deadline for the National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE) affirmative requirements. Initially planned for earlier implementation, the new deadline of October 1, 2025, gives property owners and managers in the Public Housing and Multifamily Housing programs extra time to align their properties with the updated standards. Background and Rationale for Extension The decision to extend the compliance period was influenced by the challenges property owners and managers encountered in meeting the new requirements. HUD recognizes the complexity of these updates and the operational adjustments needed, so it has opted to provide a grace period, allowing property stakeholders to address any deficiencies without immediate penalty. While property inspections conducted during this period will still identify deficiencies, they will not adversely affect inspection scores until the new deadline. Instead, flagged issues will be marked with a caret (^) symbol, indicating non-compliance that must be addressed before the final implementation date. It s important to note that the extension does not change HUD s existing policies regarding traditionally non-scored deficiencies. This means that requirements related to smoke detectors, carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, handrails, and call-for-aid devices remain unchanged and must continue to be addressed according to HUD s existing standards. Key Affirmative Requirements Under NSPIRE The NSPIRE affirmative requirements encompass a wide array of safety and habitability standards aimed at improving the quality of housing for tenants. These requirements pertain to various aspects of property maintenance, including site conditions, individual unit standards, building interiors, and exterior features. Below is a summary of the essential requirements: Site-Specific Requirements Installation of fire-labeled doors Electrical safety improvements, such as the installation of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCI) and Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI) are essential. Guardrails for elevated surfaces HVAC system compliance with specified standards Adequate interior lighting levels Minimum electrical and lighting standards to ensure habitability Detailed Unit Requirements Provision of hot and cold running water in bathrooms and kitchens Private bathroom facilities with required fixtures Properly installed smoke detectors in designated locations Special accommodations for hearing-impaired residents, including visual alert devices CO alarms installed per safety regulations Designated living room and kitchen area standards Electrical outlet and lighting provisions for Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program units GFCI protection in areas near water sources Adequate heating sources to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures Guardrails for elevated surfaces within units Fixed lighting in kitchens and bathrooms for enhanced visibility Building Interior Requirements Smoke detectors installed on each level of the property CO alarms strategically placed to maximize safety GFCI protection in locations with potential water exposure Guardrails for all elevated walking areas Permanently mounted lighting fixtures to improve illumination Restrictions on the use of unvented space heaters to mitigate fire hazards Exterior Requirements GFCI protection for outdoor outlets near water sources Guardrails for elevated exterior walking paths to prevent accidents Preparing for Full Implementation While the extended deadline postpones the enforcement of compliance-related penalties, property owners and managers should take advantage of this time to proactively address deficiencies and make necessary upgrades. By acting now, property stakeholders can ensure a smoother transition when the standards fully take effect in October 2025. The primary goal of these affirmative requirements is to enhance property resilience and increase tenant safety. By following these updated standards, property owners help create a healthier and more secure living environment for residents. HUD strongly encourages proactive compliance measures to prevent last-minute challenges and potential non-compliance issues when the deadline arrives. With this extension, HUD acknowledges the challenges housing providers face while reinforcing its commitment to uphold high standards of housing quality and tenant protection. Property owners and managers should use the extra time to assess, plan, and implement necessary improvements to ensure full compliance by the October 2025 deadline.

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.