Carol Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Associati
903 F.3d 100 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Housing Amendments Act, a disabled tenant is not entitled to their specific, preferred accommodation if the landlord offers a reasonable alternative that effectively addresses the tenant's needs and provides an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.
Facts:
- Carol Vorchheimer, a resident of The Philadelphian condominium, suffered from disabilities that required her to use a rolling walker.
- Because she was unable to lift or fold the walker to put it in her car, she began leaving it in the building's lobby.
- Building staff repeatedly moved her walker from the lobby into a storage room, requiring her to ask for it upon her return.
- Vorchheimer insisted she needed to leave the walker in the lobby to retrieve it independently.
- The Philadelphian's management refused her request but offered four alternative accommodations: 1) staff would store and retrieve the walker, and she could call ahead or wait on a lobby bench; 2) a staffer would deliver the walker to her car; 3) a doorman would load and unload the walker from her car; or 4) she could park in the indoor valet garage and leave the walker near the valet station.
- Vorchheimer rejected all proposed alternatives.
- Her doctor provided letters stating that ready access to her walker was a medical necessity but described her preferred option of leaving it in the lobby as 'preferable' to maintain her independence.
Procedural Posture:
- Carol Vorchheimer (Plaintiff) sued The Philadelphian Owners’ Association, its general manager, and its president (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court.
- Vorchheimer alleged the defendants violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act by refusing her request for an accommodation.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that Vorchheimer had not plausibly alleged her requested accommodation was 'necessary.'
- Vorchheimer filed an amended complaint, which the District Court again dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- Vorchheimer (Appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's refusal to grant a disabled tenant's preferred accommodation violate the Fair Housing Amendments Act when the landlord offers alternative accommodations that also meet the tenant's underlying medical needs?
Opinions:
Majority - Bibas
No. A landlord's refusal to provide a tenant's preferred accommodation does not violate the Fair Housing Amendments Act if the landlord has offered alternative accommodations that effectively meet the tenant's needs. The Act's requirement that an accommodation be 'necessary' establishes a demanding legal standard, meaning it must be indispensable or essential, not merely preferable or convenient. To determine if a specific accommodation is 'necessary' to afford a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling, courts must consider any alternative solutions offered by the landlord. If an offered alternative sufficiently addresses the tenant's underlying need, then the tenant's preferred option is not legally 'necessary.' In this case, Vorchheimer's own pleadings, including her doctor's letters that described her request as 'preferable,' and the four reasonable alternatives offered by The Philadelphian, demonstrate that her preferred accommodation was not necessary. The alternatives provided her with ready access to her walker without requiring her to stand and wait, thereby satisfying her medical needs.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'necessity' element in failure-to-accommodate claims under the Fair Housing Amendments Act. It establishes that the availability of effective, alternative accommodations offered by a landlord is a critical factor in determining whether a tenant's requested accommodation is legally necessary. This shifts the legal analysis from focusing solely on the tenant's request to a comparative assessment of the proposed solutions. The ruling empowers landlords to participate in an interactive process and propose viable alternatives, potentially reducing litigation by preventing tenants from insisting on a single, preferred accommodation when other effective options exist.
Unlock the full brief for Carol Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Associati