Cohen v. Township of Cheltenham, Pennsylvania
2001 WL 1450619, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18779, 174 F.Supp.2d 307 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), a plaintiff must provide specific, individualized evidence that the intended beneficiaries are "handicapped" as defined by the statute. Generalized testimony that a class of individuals might have qualifying impairments is insufficient to meet this burden.
Facts:
- Sidney and Dorothy Cohen owned a five-bedroom home in a residential zoning district in Cheltenham Township designated for single-family residences.
- The township's zoning ordinance defined a "family" as any number of related persons or two or fewer unrelated persons.
- In 1995, the Cohens entered into an agreement to sell their house for use as a group home for up to ten abused, neglected, and abandoned children.
- After that agreement expired, the Cohens' daughter, Susan Cohen, agreed to purchase the property to operate the group home herself.
- The proposed facility would provide a structured, therapeutic environment with 24-hour mental health staff for children staying up to ten months or longer.
- The Cohens required a zoning variance from the single-family designation to operate the home with ten unrelated children.
- While their variance requests were pending, the Cohens filed for bankruptcy and their home was sold at a sheriff's sale in January 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 30, 1995, Sidney and Dorothy Cohen filed an application with the Cheltenham Township Zoning Hearing Board for a zoning variance.
- On December 11, 1995, the Board denied the application.
- The Cohens appealed the denial to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, a state trial court.
- The Cohens filed a housing discrimination complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which referred the matter to the Department of Justice.
- On June 11, 1997, the United States sued the Township and the Board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The Cohens intervened as plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
- The United States settled its suit, and the Township enacted a new ordinance allowing for reasonable accommodations.
- On June 2, 1998, the Cohens applied for a reasonable accommodation under the new ordinance, which the Board again denied on October 19, 1998.
- The Cohens filed a second appeal in state court but later withdrew both state court appeals to proceed with their federal action.
- The Township and the Board filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Cohens filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in the U.S. District Court.
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 zoning board's refusal to grant a variance for a group home for abused and neglected children violate the Fair Housing Amendments Act's reasonable accommodation provision when the applicants fail to provide individualized evidence that the specific future residents would be "handicapped" as defined by the statute?
Opinions:
Majority - DuBois, J.
No. The zoning board's refusal to grant a variance did not violate the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) because the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that the proposed residents of the group home would be handicapped. To state a claim under the FHAA's reasonable accommodation provision, a plaintiff must first establish that the intended beneficiaries of the accommodation are protected by the Act. The FHAA defines "handicap" as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Citing the Supreme Court's individualized inquiry standard from ADA cases like Sutton v. United Air Lines, the court held that plaintiffs cannot rely on generalized evidence about a group. The plaintiffs' expert testimony only suggested that abused and neglected children might suffer from various impairments, but it failed to provide any evidence concerning specific children who would reside in the home. Furthermore, the home's admission criteria did not require a prospective resident to have a qualifying physical or mental impairment. The court also rejected the claim that the defendants "regarded" the children as handicapped, noting that the Board's explicit finding that the children were not handicapped directly contradicts such a claim. Because the plaintiffs failed this threshold requirement of proving a handicap, their FHAA claim fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs seeking FHAA protection for prospective residents of a group home whose identities are not yet known. It firmly applies the "individualized inquiry" standard from disability law, requiring specific proof of a handicap rather than allowing reliance on characteristics common to a group. The ruling effectively instructs future operators of such proposed facilities to either identify specific, qualifying residents or, more practically, to draft admission standards that explicitly require residents to meet the statutory definition of "handicap." This precedent heightens the initial legal requirements for bringing an FHAA discrimination claim in the context of proposed, unpopulated group homes.
