Yes. The judge decided that the couple did not win their argument about getting special paint. To win, they needed to show that the special paint was absolutely *necessary* to give Ms. Matarese an equal chance to live there. The judge felt that for a complex issue like chemical allergies, you need an expert to explain to the court exactly why that specific request was the only way to help. Because the couple didn't provide that expert proof, they lost on that part of their case. However, the judge said their other claim — that the landlord refused to renew their lease because of the disability — could still go to trial, because what the manager said sounded like illegal discrimination.

There are enough questions about what really happened that we can't decide the whole case right now. We need to have a trial to figure out if the wife's health problems count as a disability under the law and if the apartment owners treated her unfairly because of those problems. But the couple didn't prove that the specific help they asked for was really necessary, so that part of their case can't go forward. Also, the couple can't sue the apartment owners for not training their workers about the law, because there's no rule that says they have to do that training.

No. To establish a claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the proposed accommodation is (1) reasonable, (2) necessary, and (3) affords the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the housing. The court grants summary judgment for the defendants on this claim because the plaintiffs failed to meet their evidentiary burden on the 'necessity' element. The court reasoned that establishing the necessary causal link between a specific accommodation (e.g., non-VOC paint) and affording equal opportunity for a complex condition like chemical sensitivity is not within the knowledge of a layperson and requires expert testimony. The plaintiffs' medical expert was not designated as an expert on accommodations, and his affidavit was too conclusory to prove that the requested changes were specifically necessary to afford Ms. Matarese an equal opportunity in housing, as opposed to simply ameliorating a general inconvenience. Therefore, the claim fails as a matter of law.

Yes, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants discriminated against the plaintiffs in violation of the Fair Housing Act. I deny summary judgment on most of the plaintiffs' claims because there are disputes of fact regarding whether Ms. Matarese has a qualifying handicap under the FHA and whether the defendants' actions were motivated by discriminatory intent. Specifically, I find there are factual disputes about whether Ms. Matarese's chemical sensitivities substantially limit a major life activity, whether there was a record of such impairment, and whether the defendants regarded her as having such an impairment. I also find there are factual disputes about whether the defendants' stated reasons for not renewing the lease and denying accommodations were pretextual. However, I grant summary judgment on the plaintiffs' reasonable accommodation claims because they failed to provide expert testimony establishing that the requested accommodations were necessary to afford Ms. Matarese equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling. I also grant summary judgment on the negligence claim for failure to train employees on FHA requirements, as the plaintiffs failed to establish a legal duty. Finally, I grant summary judgment dismissing certain corporate defendants that were not directly involved in managing the property.

Matarese v. Archstone Pentagon City

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot