Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)

Citation
Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
Parent Document
Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
Effective Date
2018-03-01

Other Sections in This Document (36)

Full Text

1,238 chars
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination un-
der any program or activity receiving Federal financial assis-
tance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
    Importantly, all three statutes apply to municipal zoning
decisions. See Wis. Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465
F.3d 737, 752 n.12 (7th Cir. 2006) (en banc); Oconomowoc, 300
F.3d at 782. A plaintiff may prove a violation of the FHA,
ADA, or Rehabilitation Act by showing: (1) disparate treat-
ment; (2) disparate impact; or (3) a refusal to make a reasona-
ble accommodation. Reg’l Econ. Cmty. Action Program, Inc. v.
City of Middletown, 294 F.3d 35, 48 (2d Cir. 2002). For each re-
spective theory, the same analysis generally applies under all
three statutes. See id. at 48–53.
     C. Reasonable Accommodation
    The district court found that plaintiffs possessed a reason-
able likelihood of success under theories of both intentional
discrimination and reasonable accommodation. We need not
address both issues here. “[W]e may affirm on any basis that
appears in the record,” see Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957,
965 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012), and plaintiffs’ reasonable accommoda-
tion claim offers a sufficient avenue for affirming the district
court’s ruling.8