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

1,148 chars
13
Petitioners were aware that Rusinov had MS, Rusinov's MS qualified as a handicap, Rusinov informed Petitioners that he required a parking space close to his building because of his handicap, and Rusinov requested an assigned parking space as a reasonable accommodation. At that point, Petitioners had a duty to make a reasonable accommodation. They did not make a reasonable accommodation, so they violated the FHA. It is irrelevant whether Rusinov's mobility did not "appear" to Petitioners to be limited by his MS. The existence of a handicap, as defined by Congress in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h), does not depend on Rusinov's appearance, it depends upon his physical condition.1 Petitioners denied Rusinov's request without asking for more information regarding the extent to which Rusinov's MS limited his activities. Had they asked, we presume that Rusinov would have provided them with the substantial documentation that he provided to HUD and the ALJ. If a landlord is skeptical of a tenant's alleged disability or the landlord's ability to provide an accommodation, it is incumbent upon the landlord to request documentation or open a dialogue.