Defiore v. City Rescue Mission
995 F. Supp. 2d 413 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether an entity qualifies for a religious exemption under the ADA or FHA, whether a temporary shelter constitutes a 'dwelling' under the FHA, and whether an accommodation poses an 'undue burden' are all fact-intensive inquiries that are generally improper to resolve on a motion to dismiss before discovery.
Facts:
- Kenneth Defiore is a blind adult male who requires a service animal, a chocolate Labrador retriever named Gabby.
- City Rescue Mission of New Castle ('City Rescue') operates the Crossroads Shelter Program ('Crossroads'), which provides temporary emergency shelter for men.
- On or about December 5, 2011, Defiore contacted Crossroads by telephone to request emergency shelter.
- During the call, Defiore indicated he would need shelter for himself and his service animal.
- Crossroads denied Defiore entry to the shelter.
- Subsequently, an employee from the Lawrence County Community Action Partnership called Crossroads on Defiore's behalf to again request shelter.
- Crossroads again denied Defiore entry.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Defiore filed a lawsuit (Civil Action No. 12-1590) against City Rescue Mission and its manager in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the ADA, FHA, and PHRA.
- The United States of America filed a separate lawsuit (Civil Action No. 13-916) against the same defendants in the same court, alleging violations of the ADA and FHA.
- In both cases, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The District Court is considering both motions to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a court dismiss a discrimination claim at the pleading stage by determining as a matter of law that a homeless shelter is a religious organization exempt from the ADA and FHA, is not a 'dwelling' under the FHA, and that accommodating a service animal would constitute an undue burden?
Opinions:
Majority - Bissoon, District Judge
No. A court may not dismiss the claims because the defendant's affirmative defenses regarding religious exemption, the definition of a 'dwelling,' and undue burden all present mixed questions of law and fact that cannot be resolved without a more developed factual record. The court reasoned that (1) determining whether Crossroads is a 'religious organization' requires applying a multi-factor test (adopted from Title VII jurisprudence) for which the plaintiffs are entitled to discovery; (2) whether the shelter is a 'dwelling' under the FHA depends on factual questions about the intended length of stay and whether residents view it as a home, which the defendant failed to disprove; and (3) the 'undue burden' argument was entirely speculative, as Crossroads never inquired into what specific accommodations Defiore and his service animal actually required. Therefore, dismissal before discovery is inappropriate.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates the high bar for defendants seeking to dismiss discrimination claims at the pleading stage. It affirms that fact-intensive affirmative defenses, such as religious exemption or undue burden, are typically unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. The court's application of the Title VII 'religious organization' test from LeBoon to an ADA/FHA case solidifies that analytical framework in the Third Circuit. Furthermore, the decision reinforces a broad interpretation of 'dwelling' under the FHA to include homeless shelters, focusing on the functional reality for residents rather than the transient nature of the facility.
Unlock the full brief for Defiore v. City Rescue Mission