George Dadian and Astrid Dadian v. Village of Wilmette
12 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 609, 269 F.3d 831, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22485 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), a public entity that denies a requested accommodation by asserting that the individual with a disability poses a 'direct threat' to the health or safety of others bears the burden of proving that defense.
Facts:
- George and Astrid Dadian, an elderly couple, sought to reconstruct their home in Wilmette, Illinois, to accommodate their physical impairments.
- Mrs. Dadian suffers from osteoporosis and asthma, which substantially limits her ability to walk and causes difficulty with twisting and turning. Mr. Dadian has orthopedic problems.
- Their proposed home design included an attached front garage and driveway, which would be easier for them to use than their existing detached rear garage requiring an 80-foot walk.
- A Village ordinance prohibited front driveways unless over 50% of homes on the block already had one, which was not the case on the Dadians' block.
- The Dadians applied for a permit under the ordinance's 'hardship exception,' citing their physical disabilities.
- The Village Board of Trustees denied the permit in a 5-2 vote, with several members expressing concern that Mrs. Dadian's difficulty with twisting and turning would pose a safety hazard to children on the block.
- The Board suggested the Dadians build an attached rear garage with a turnabout, which the Dadians rejected because it would destroy their backyard.
Procedural Posture:
- George and Astrid Dadian sued the Village of Wilmette in U.S. District Court, alleging violations of the ADA, FHAA, and constitutional rights.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of evidence, the trial court granted the Village's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the constitutional claims but denied it for the ADA and FHAA claims.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Dadians on the ADA and FHAA claims.
- The Village filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The district court entered an injunction ordering the Village to grant the Dadians' permit.
- The Village of Wilmette appealed the jury verdict and the district court's rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 public entity, when asserting that an individual with a disability poses a direct threat to the safety of others as a defense to a discrimination claim under the ADA and FHAA, bear the burden of proving that defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A public entity that asserts the reason it failed to accommodate an individual with a disability was because they posed a direct threat to safety bears the burden of proof on that defense at trial. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence that the Village failed to reasonably accommodate the Dadians' disabilities. The court's primary legal holding addresses the Village's argument that the jury was improperly instructed. It held that the legislative history of the FHAA and judicial interpretations of analogous provisions in Titles I and III of the ADA both support placing the burden on the defendant to prove a 'direct threat' defense. The FHAA's legislative history, incorporating the standard from School Bd. of Nassau County, Florida v. Arline, requires the defendant to establish a nexus between the individual's disability and the asserted threat using objective, credible evidence, not 'unsubstantiated inferences' or stereotypes. Similarly, courts interpreting the ADA's employment and public accommodation sections have consistently placed the burden on employers and entities to prove that an individual poses a direct threat that cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the district court did not err by instructing the jury that the Village had the burden of proving its safety concerns were legitimate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and solidifies the allocation of the burden of proof for the 'direct threat' affirmative defense under the FHAA and Title II of the ADA within the Seventh Circuit. It establishes that a public entity cannot merely invoke safety concerns to deny an accommodation; it must affirmatively prove with objective evidence that the individual poses a significant risk to others. This holding strengthens protections for individuals with disabilities by preventing public bodies from making discriminatory decisions based on stereotypes, speculation, or unfounded fears about a person's condition. The ruling requires decision-makers to conduct an individualized assessment based on credible evidence rather than generalized assumptions.
