Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)

Citation
Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)
Parent Document
Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891 (1996)
Effective Date
1996-08-26

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text

744 chars
11
Petitioners' first argument is essentially that Rusinov bore the burden of producing documentation establishing the extent of his handicap and his need for the requested accommodation. Petitioners admit that they knew that Rusinov had MS, but they argue that they were unaware that Rusinov's MS affected his mobility such that he needed an assigned parking space. Petitioners' denial of Rusinov's request based on their lack of knowledge of the extent of his injury is simply a ruse to avoid the penalty for violating the FHA. It is telling that Petitioners denied his request without asking Rusinov for more information regarding his condition. Regardless of their motive for pursuing the issue, however, Petitioners' position is untenable.