Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)

Citation
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Parent Document
Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2005-10-13

Other Sections in This Document (533)

Full Text

1,981 chars
The court said "no" for a second reason: that this case came within the statutory exception that cancels a landlord's obligation to offer a reasonable accommodation when the tenancy constitutes "a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals."[26] Contrary to the trial court's understanding, however, federal courts construing the Fair Housing Act have held—and we agree—that this exception does not come into play until after the trial court has evaluated the landlord's response to a requested accommodation and has determined, after a factual inquiry, that no reasonable accommodation could ameliorate the situation sufficiently to protect the health, safety, and property of others.[27] One federal court has succinctly stated the point this way: "accommodation of an individual's handicap must be attempted before denial of the benefits of federal legislation."[28] We do not believe that the court intended to suggest that the landlord must actually "attempt," i.e., carry out, a requested accommodation if patently unreasonable. Rather, as stated earlier, the landlord must attempt accommodation at least by opening a dialogue with the tenant on the requested accommodation and thus explore accommodation in good faith before saying "no." Here, however, a jury reasonably could find that the landlord never made this required effort for accommodation,[29] and yet the trial court held that the requested accommodation, even if explored further, could not save the situation for the tenant and others in the building. There may be situations in which no reasonable fact-finder could find that the accommodation requested was reasonable or, in any event, could protect the health, safety, or property of others.[30] But this is not necessarily such a case. We believe that in denying the very possibility of an effective accommodation on the facts here, the trial court *1126 ruled prematurely that the "health and safety" exception barred the tenant's defense.