DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 1437d

Citation
Section 1437d
Parent Document
Rucker v. Davis, 237 F.3d 1113 (2001)
Effective Date
2001-01-24
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7086389/rucker-v-davis/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

839 chars 
The district court noted that Walker alleged he required an in-home caregiver because of his disability and that he alleged he was not physically able to search persons entering his apartment. The district court concluded that the ADA might require some form of accommodation in the eviction policies for his situation, citing an Oregon case which required the housing authority to modify its “no dogs” policy for a hearing impaired tenant. Green v. Hous. Auth. of Clackamas Comity, 994 F.Supp. 1253, 1257 (D.Or.1998). Although OHA asserted that there could be no reasonable accommodation in Walker’s case because the only alternative would be a “blanket exemption” from the drug policy, the district court found that, based on the allegations of the complaint, it could not rule as a matter of law that no reasonable accommodation exists.