Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
465 F.3d 737, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 24259, 18 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 918 (2006)
Rule of Law:
To establish that a requested modification to a public entity's policy is 'necessary' under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show a causal link between the disability and the inability to access the service or benefit. The plaintiff must demonstrate that 'but for' the disability, they would not be in need of the accommodation.
Facts:
- Wisconsin Community Services (WCS) is a non-profit organization that provides outpatient services to individuals with severe mental illnesses.
- Between 1994 and 1998, WCS's client base grew from 250 to 400 patients, causing significant overcrowding in its 7,500 square-foot clinic.
- The overcrowding created a noisy and stressful environment that aggravated patients' symptoms and compromised the privacy required for effective therapy.
- After a three-year search for a new location that was affordable, safe, and accessible by public transit, WCS identified an 81,000 square-foot building at 3716 West Wisconsin Avenue.
- This property was located in a 'local business district' where health clinics were not permitted by right but were considered 'special uses' requiring a discretionary permit from the City of Milwaukee.
- WCS made an offer to purchase the property that was contingent on receiving the required special use permit, which the seller accepted.
Procedural Posture:
- Wisconsin Community Services (WCS) applied to the Milwaukee Department of City Development (DCD) for a special use permit, which the DCD denied.
- WCS appealed the denial to the Milwaukee Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA), which held a public hearing and subsequently denied the permit application on May 9, 2001.
- WCS filed suit against the City of Milwaukee in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
- The district court granted WCS's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that BOZA had erred by refusing to consider a reasonable accommodation, and remanded the matter to BOZA for a new hearing.
- BOZA held a second hearing and, on December 22, 2002, again denied the special use permit, finding the requested accommodation was not reasonable or necessary.
- WCS reinstated its action in the district court. The court granted partial summary judgment to WCS, concluding the accommodation was reasonable and necessary, and issued an injunction ordering the City to grant the permit.
- The City of Milwaukee (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with WCS as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, is a requested zoning modification 'necessary' simply because it would ameliorate the effects of a disability, or must the plaintiff also show that the disability is the cause of its inability to meet the existing zoning requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Ripple, Circuit Judge
No. A requested zoning modification is not 'necessary' simply because it would ameliorate the effects of a disability; the plaintiff must also show that the disability is the cause of its inability to meet the existing zoning requirements. Both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require that an accommodation be 'necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.' This language creates a causation requirement, meaning the unmodified rule must harm disabled individuals 'by reason of their handicap,' not due to a factor they share with the general public, such as limited finances or non-profit status. The proper inquiry is a 'but for' test: the plaintiff must show that, but for the disability, they would have been able to access the desired benefit. Here, WCS's inability to obtain the permit appears to stem from its plan to open a non-profit clinic in a zone where the City preferred a commercial, tax-paying tenant, a reason unrelated to its clients' disabilities. The district court erred by failing to apply this 'but for' causation standard, and the case must be remanded to determine whether WCS was prevented from finding a suitable facility specifically because of its clients' disabilities.
Concurrence - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
Yes, I join the majority opinion. While I previously believed the ADA regulation did not create a separate accommodation requirement, I now agree that it does. The crucial point is that any required accommodation must be 'necessary to avoid discrimination.' This means the rule being challenged must hurt disabled people 'by reason of their handicap,' not for reasons common to other people. This is consistent with the majority's 'but for' causation analysis. The regulation reasonably allows for disparate impact to be shown through case-specific evidence rather than just statistics, which is a practical approach for implementing the ADA in the context of zoning.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'necessity' prong of the reasonable accommodation test under the ADA's Title II in the Seventh Circuit. It establishes a strict causation requirement, preventing the ADA from becoming a tool for any group serving disabled individuals to circumvent neutral, generally applicable rules for reasons unrelated to disability, such as financial constraints or non-profit status. The ruling distinguishes between accommodations that are truly essential because of a disability and those that are merely beneficial or convenient. This precedent forces plaintiffs in zoning disputes to prove that their clients' disabilities, and not other factors, are the specific reason they cannot find a suitable location under existing zoning laws.
