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
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1472683/douglas-v-kriegsfeld-corp/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (533)

Full Text

1,943 chars 
The landlord argues nonetheless that the "reasonable accommodation" defense, as formulated by the tenant, is unavailable as a matter of law for another reason, unrelated to the facts. The tenant's request, says the landlord, does not fit the traditional, legal understanding of "accommodation." Several federal courts, we are told, have said that "reasonable accommodation" means changing some rule that is generally applicable to everyone so as to make its burden less onerous on the handicapped individual.[33] The Fair Housing Act itself, however, defines discrimination more broadly as "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations" not only in "rules" but also in "policies, practices, or services,"[34] language broad enough to embrace modification of a wide variety of landlord actions that surely would include a brief continuance of the eviction proceeding to solve a concrete problem—as the case law makes clear.[35] Such a continuance after a tenant violates a lease covenant may not be the kind of accommodation requested—and required—for most handicaps. But the Fair Housing Act requires reasonable accommodation of a "mental impairment," which, unlike many handicaps, inherently reflects varied, unusual behaviors that will require unique responses—limited, of course, to reasonable ones—if the statutory purpose of "accommodation" is to be effectuated. Here, in any event, the tenant asks for waiver of a "generally applicable" rule/policy/practice, namely "relaxation or bending" of the rigid eviction timetable in a standard apartment lease, in order to make the cure period less onerous for the person claiming to be handicapped. In our view, the tenant's request for a brief stay of the eviction proceeding with related follow-up meets the statutory test for "reasonable accommodation" because it imposes no "fundamental alteration" in the nature of the landlord's practice or "undue financial or administrative burdens."[36]