Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Andover Housing Authority v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300 (2005)

Citation
Andover Housing Authority v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300 (2005)
Parent Document
Andover Housing Authority v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date
2005-01-14

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text

1,237 chars
In their counterclaim to the authority’s summary process action, the tenants also alleged that the authority had engaged in discrimination in violation of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 794. Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act states in relevant part: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). See Dahill v. Police Dep’t of Boston, supra at 238 n.8. At trial, counsel for the tenants made no mention of the Rehabilitation Act, and there is no evidence in the record to show that Frye Circle is federally subsidized. Cf. City Wide Assocs. v. Penfield, 409 Mass. 140, 141 (1991) (residential tenancy subsidized under Federal Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program); Whittier Terrace Assocs. v. Hampshire, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 1020 (1989) (housing project subsidized by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development). Therefore, we will not consider the tenants’ claim of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.