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

1,405 chars
Judge Schwelb relies on two cases that, in our judgment, make clear how the "reasonable accommodation" requirement should be treated and why the result here should be as the en banc majority, not his dissent, analyzes the case. In Andover Housing Authority v. Shkolnik,[74] reasonable accommodation was sought for an ill tenant and spouse who made excessive *1141 noise. The housing authority responded immediately to the tenant's request for accommodation by investigating the feasibility of acoustical carpeting, a sound-absorbing drop ceiling, a room air conditioner so that the windows could remain closed during hot weather, and a stay of the eviction proceeding pending installation of an effective accommodation. The tenants, in the meantime, kept denying the noise and made no effort to engage in the interactive process, unlike the effort initiated by the tenant in this case. After a three-month stay of the eviction proceeding "so the tenants could continue to work with the authority and with their neighbors in order reasonably to accommodate all residents' needs,"[75] the process failed and the court entered judgment of possession for the housing authority. The housing authority thus made the kinds of efforts to accommodate that the law requires — efforts that contrast sharply with the landlord's failure in this case to join the interactive process required under the Fair Housing Act.