42 U.S.C. § 3604

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations only when they may be necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, not a better opportunity.

Clay v. IH4 Property Florida, L.P. · filed 2019-09-20(f)(3)(B)

In this context, ‘equal opportunity’ can only mean that handicapped people must be afforded the same (or ‘equal’) opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as non-handicapped people, which occurs when accommodations address the needs created by the handicaps. If accommodations go beyond addressing these needs and start addressing problems not caused by a person’s handicap, then the handicapped person would receive not an ‘equal,’ but rather a better opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, a preference that the plain language of this statute cannot support.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a handicapped individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; an accommodation is not reasonable when it would thwart a building-safety rule's purpose.

Summers v. City of Fitchburg · filed 2019-10-08(f)(3)(B)

In this regard, the FHAA defines discrimination to include "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a handicapped individual] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... This argument does not withstand scrutiny because the plaintiffs fail to show that their request for an exemption from the Sprinkler Law is reasonable. Inasmuch as the requested accommodation fails the reasonableness requirement, we start — and end — there. ... This case is a paradigmatic example of that principle: exempting the plaintiffs from installing sprinklers would not be a reasonable accommodation because such an exemption would thwart the very salutary purpose of the Sprinkler Law.

A damages claim under § 3604(f)(3)(B) does not cover towing costs incurred before the plaintiff requested an accommodation and the defendant refused it.

Lau v. Honolulu Park Place, AOAO · filed 2019-12-03(f)(3)(B)

The Laus vehicle was towed on July 10, 2017. ... The Laus’ FHAA claim is premised on Defendants’ decision on August 23, 2017, to deny the Laus’ request for a parking accommodation. ... Because the Laus’ vehicle was towed before the Laus had even requested an accommodation, and before Defendants “refus[ed] to make reasonable accommodations in [its] rules,” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), the Laus’ vehicle was not towed as a result of a violation of the FHAA. ... Therefore, the Laus cannot recover under the FHAA for any damages related to their vehicle being towed.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires housing providers to make only moderate, reasonable adjustments to policies, not fundamental changes such as a total smoking ban.

Davis v. Echo Valley Condominium Ass'n · filed 2019-12-19(f)(3)(B)

Ultimately, though, we find it easiest to resolve Davis’s claim on another ground: She must show that her request qualifies as a “reasonable accommodation” to the Association’s policy of allowing smoking. Davis cannot meet this element. Text and precedent both show that the phrase “reasonable accommodation” means a moderate adjustment to a challenged policy, not a fundamental change in the policy. Davis’s smoking ban falls in the latter camp.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing a reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to afford a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and an unreasonable delay can amount to a constructive denial.

Shaw v. Cherokee Meadows, LP · filed 2019-12-30(f)(3)(B)

To establish discrimination under the FHA for failure to accommodate, plaintiffs must demonstrate: (1) that they are handicapped as defined by the FHA; (2) that defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the claimed handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendants refused to make such accommodation. ... Under the FHA, an unreasonable delay may constitute a constructive denial.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing provider to meaningfully review a disability-related accommodation request and permits it to seek information about the disability and disability-related need when necessary to decide the request.

Douglas Furbee, Furbee Properties, LLC, Furbee Properties I, LLC v. Gregory L. Wilson, Sr. in his Official Capacity as E · filed 2020-03-30(f)(3)(B)

Once a housing provider knows of a person’s request for an accommodation, the provider can make a final decision, “which necessarily includes the ability to conduct a meaningful review” to determine whether the FHA requires the requested accommodation. ... In these cases, the housing provider may request information regarding “both the disability and the disability-related need for the animal.” ... Landlord, at the very least, was entitled to know Tenant’s disability and disability-related need for the animal. ... Accordingly, Landlord was justified in trying to open a dialogue with Tenant and requesting more information from her.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Jackson v. City of Grand Prairie Texas · filed 2020-04-13(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a handicapped1 individual by refusing “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604. ... For an accommodation to be necessary, a plaintiff must establish that “but for the accommodation” he will likely “be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of [his] choice.” ... Plaintiff does not allege with particularity the nature of the equal opportunity of which he was deprived because of his disability, the impact of an additional extension to the voucher search period, and how that impact would directly ameliorate the effect of his disability to provide him an equal opportunity to obtain housing. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation claims under the FHA, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a refused reasonable accommodation to be necessary to afford a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

COYNE v. HOLY FAMILY APARTMENTS · filed 2020-04-29(f)(3)(B)

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need only plausibly plead enough facts to make out the three elements set forth in § 3604(f)(3)(B) [of the FHAA]: refusal, reasonable accommodation, and necessity/equal opportunity.” ... The element of necessity “requires that an accommodation be essential, not just preferable.” ... Plaintiff has failed to plead facts to demonstrate that the accommodations she sought were necessary, for she failed to first show this Court what her needs are because of her specific disabilities.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a plaintiff to show a handicap, the defendant's knowledge, necessity and reasonableness of the requested accommodation, and the defendant's refusal to provide it.

McAdoo v. Vici Community Development Corp · filed 2020-05-18(f)(3)(B)

In order to establish discrimination here, “plaintiffs must demonstrate: (1) that they are handicapped as defined by the FHA; (2) that defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the claimed handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendants refused to make such accommodation.”

Section 3604(f)(2), together with the reasonable-accommodation provision in § 3604(f)(3)(B), requires only accommodations necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, not a preferred or better opportunity.

Phillips v. Acacia on the Green Condominium Association, Inc. · filed 2020-10-07(f)(2)

The FHAA only requires a building owner or manager to make those accommodations that are “necessary” to give a person with a handicap an “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Davis v. Echo Valley Condo. Ass’n, 945 F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir. 2019). “[T]he law does not require more or better opportunities for those with handicaps as compared to those without.” Id., quoting Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Ctr. v. St. George City, 685 F.3d 917, 923 (10th Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original, internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Yuzyuk v. Our Place Manor LLP · filed 2020-12-02(f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Act provides that it is unlawful to refuse, in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling, to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires plaintiffs seeking a reasonable accommodation to show that, without it, they likely would be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy housing of their choice.

Freedom's Path at Dayton v. Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority · filed 2021-01-05(f)(3)(B)

The statute links the term “necessary” to the goal of equal opportunity. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (“accommodation ... necessary to afford ... equal opportunity”). Plaintiffs must show that, but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice. ... Here, Plaintiffs have not shown that, but for the accommodation, they would likely be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice. The proposed accommodation was that Defendant amend their administrative plan to be able to award the vouchers based on awards through other governmental entities without having to go through a competitive process. Without the accommodation, they would not succeed, just as non-disabled people would not succeed.

Section 3604(f)(3) requires housing accommodations to be reasonable and necessary to give persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

Fedynich v. Lozano · filed 2021-02-23(f)(3)

Because the Fedynichs present only conclusory allegations to the contrary, the Court finds that the Defendants did not fail to provide “reasonable” and “necessary” accommodations to afford ... the Fedynichs “equal opportunity[] to use and enjoy [their] housing.” Bryant Woods Inn, 124 F.3d at 603 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a necessary reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services as prohibited discrimination in housing.

Nawrocki v. Oak Brook Towers Condominium Association · filed 2021-02-23(f)(3)(B)

Section 3604 begins with a paragraph declaring that the practices listed in the following subsections “shall be unlawful.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Among those practices, subsection (f)(1) forbids anyone covered by the FHA “[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of [among other things,] that buyer or renter.” § 3604(f)(1). By its terms, the statutory definition defines prohibited “discrimination” to include “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Galia v. Wasatch Advantage Group LLC · filed 2021-04-16(f)(3)(B)

“[P]rohibited discrimination encompasses ‘a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’” ... “Thus, the [FHA] ‘imposes an affirmative duty upon landlords reasonably to accommodate the needs of handicapped persons,’ United States v. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 29 F.3d 1413, 1416 (9th Cir.1994) . . . , not only with regard to the physical accommodations, see 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) & (C), but also with regard to the administrative policies governing rentals.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a necessary reasonable accommodation in housing rules, policies, practices, or services as disability discrimination.

Melton v. University of Oklahoma · filed 2021-03-31(f)(3)(B)

Disability discrimination under the FHA “may take several forms,” including as applicable here “‘a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’” ... The Court agrees with Defendants that the element of refusal has not been plausibly pled. The failure to fully test and remediate mold within at most two or three days of such a request does not, by itself, constitute a refusal to do so.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing provider to make a reasonable accommodation when it is necessary to give persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; the requested accommodation must be reasonable and necessary, and the provider bears the burden to show unreasonableness.

One Love Housing, LLC v. City of Anoka · filed 2021-08-25(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, it is a discriminatory housing practice to refuse to make “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... In sum, if plaintiffs demonstrate that the requested accommodation is both reasonable and necessary, and the defendant fails to demonstrate that it is unreasonable, then the defendant has an affirmative duty to grant the accommodation, as a matter of law. ... Thus, as a matter of law, the City has an affirmative duty to grant One Love’s requested accommodation to increase the number of permitted residents from four to seven at the dwelling.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested housing accommodation to be necessary—indispensable or essential—to give a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Guenther v. Walnut Grove Hillside Condo. Regime No. 3 · filed 2021-07-02(f)(3)(B)

The FHA requires accommodation if such accommodation (1) is reasonable and (2) necessary (3) to afford a handicapped person the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. ... In order to demonstrate that the accommodation was necessary, a claimant is required to show that the accommodation was indispensable or essential to the claimant’s equal opportunity to use and enjoy his or her dwelling.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Dayton Veterans Residences v. Dayton Metro. Housing Auth. · filed 2021-11-19(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, discrimination includes the “refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a disabled] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Applying Smith & Lee’s necessity rule here, we must ask whether both disabled tenants and non-disabled tenants would have an equal opportunity to “enjoy the housing of their choice” but for GDPM’s failure to amend its Administrative Plan. ... A reasonable jury could find that but for GDPM’s denial of Freedom’s Path’s proposed accommodation, disabled veterans would have an opportunity to live in the Dayton community more equal to the opportunity of nondisabled persons. ... Viewing the facts and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to Freedom’s Path, a jury could conclude that it was necessary for GDPM to amend its Administrative Plan to advance such equality of opportunity for disabled veterans.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) can require a landlord to waive a rent surcharge for an accessible unit when the waiver directly accommodates a tenant’s disability, even though it has a financial effect.

CNY Fair Housing, Inc. v. Clover Group Inc. · filed 2022-02-28(f)(3)(B)

Here, Plaintiffs seek “an accommodation for [their] disabilit[ies] without being forced to assume additional rental expenses,” just as in Bentley. Thus, the Court does not find that this requested relief is not cognizable under the FHA as a so-called “economic accommodation,” and declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims on that ground.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a municipality to make a reasonable accommodation in a rule, policy, practice, or service when it is necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, with the applicant bearing the initial burden to show necessity.

Murray v. ZHB · filed 2022-03-14(f)(3)(B)

Because Scioto did not satisfy its initial burden of showing “that the requested accommodation is necessary to afford handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,” the burden never shifted to Appellants to demonstrate that the accommodation was not reasonable. Carunchio, 237 A.3d at 1197 (quoting Lapid-Laurel, 284 F.3d at 457). Accordingly, the ZHB erred by concluding that the Zoning Officer properly issued the Zoning Certificate for the proposed use at the Property.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make a reasonable accommodation in a housing rule, policy, practice, or service as discrimination when the accommodation may be necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

United States v. THE DORCHESTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION · filed 2022-03-22(f)(3)(B)

Conduct qualifying as “discrimination” includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a person with a disability] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(2)-(3) prohibits refusing reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a qualified handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and unreasonable delay can amount to constructive denial.

Kris v. Dusseault Family Revocable Trust of 2017 · filed 2022-03-23(f)(2)

Section 3604 of the FHA provides, in pertinent part, that it shall be unlawful to “refus[e] to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person [with a qualified ‘handicap’] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)-(3). Section 3613 provides a private right of action for violations of that provision. See 42 U.S.C. § 3613. ... A constructive denial of a reasonable accommodation request can be established through evidence of an unreasonable delay. ... In sum, Kris has not alleged facts, which, taken as true, would demonstrate that her requested accommodation was unreasonably delayed or denied by the MHRA before that request became moot because of her eviction. Accordingly, the facts alleged in document number 66 fail to state an FHA reasonable accommodation claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

O'Rourke v. VanHeel · filed 2022-05-03(f)(3)(B)

For reasonable accommodation claims under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), unlawful discrimination includes a housing provider's “refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a handicapped] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (2009). A plaintiff must prove five elements to prevail on an FHA reasonable accommodation claim under § 3604(f)(3)(B): “(1) that the plaintiff or his associate is handicapped within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h) (“‘Handicap’ means, with respect to a person (1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, (2) a record of having such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment…”); (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make the requested accommodation.” Dubois v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1216 (2007); see also Sanzaro v. Ardiente Homeowners Ass'n, LLC, 364 F. Supp. 3d 1158, 1163 (D. Nev. 2019). The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations provide a sufficient basis for a valid FHA claim.

Section 3604(f) does not require a landlord to reassign an occupied accessible parking space from one disabled tenant to another when doing so would impose an undue hardship.

Hume v. Guardian Management LLC · filed 2022-08-10(f)

The Court agrees with Defendants, however, that under the circumstances of this case, the undisputed facts show that allotting Plaintiff an accessible parking space would impose an undue hardship on Defendants. ... Thus, granting Plaintiff’s request would require Defendants to remove other disabled individuals from their assigned accessible parking spaces in favor of Plaintiff. The FHA does not require such a result.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a reasonable accommodation necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as discrimination.

Rivera-De-Davila v. Mora Development Corporation · filed 2022-08-23(f)(3)(B)

Discrimination pursuant to the statute includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), ... To establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate under the FHA, a claimant must show: ... 4) that the party charged refused to make the requested accommodation. ... Rivera has thus pled sufficient facts to state a prima facie case for FHA discrimination in refusing to provide her a reasonable accommodation.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability discrimination in housing, including refusal to make a necessary reasonable accommodation, and a facially reasonable accommodation request shifts the undue-burden or fundamental-alteration issue to the defendant.

Unger v. Majorca at Via Verde Homeowners Association Inc. · filed 2022-09-29(f)(2)

The FHA prohibits discriminating “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... Accordingly, at the motion to dismiss stage, courts “must consider first whether the plaintiff’s own requested accommodation ‘seems reasonable on its face’ before turning to consider a defendant’s objections and counterproposals.” Schaw, 938 F.3d at 1269 (quoting Barnett, 535 U.S. at 401).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a reasonable accommodation as housing discrimination when the accommodation is necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Heimkes v. Fairhope Motorcoach Resort Condominium Owners Ass'n · filed 2023-03-06(f)(3)(B)

“The FHA prohibits discriminating against a person on the basis of a ‘handicap,’ or a disability, by refusing to make reasonable accommodations when necessary to afford the person of equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” ... “To prevail on a failure to accommodate claim pursuant to Section 3604(f)(3)(B) of the FHA, a plaintiff “must establish that (1) he is disabled or handicapped within the meaning of the FHA, (2) he requested a reasonable accommodation, (3) such accommodation was necessary to afford him an opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling, and (4) the defendants refused to make the requested accommodation.” ... “At this stage, the evidence currently before the Court is sufficient to show that Defendant’s refusal to make the requested accommodation was permitted under the FHA because Rex poses a significant risk to the safety of other owners and their guests.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a necessary reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services as discrimination.

Simmons v. Williams · filed 2023-03-31(f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of . . . that person[] or . . . a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). The Act defines discrimination to include “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Id. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... To prevail on an FHA reasonable-accommodation claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she “is disabled within the meaning of the FHA;” (2) she “requested a reasonable accommodation;” (3) “the requested accommodation was necessary to afford h[er] an opportunity to use and enjoy h[er] dwelling;” and (4) “the defendants refused to make the accommodation.” Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass’n, 765 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass’n, 760 F.3d 531, 541 (6th Cir. 2014); Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. District of Columbia, 538 F. Supp. 2d 211, 217–18 (D.D.C. 2008).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing a reasonable accommodation in a housing rule, policy, practice, or service when the accommodation may be necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; waiving extra rent for a disability-required bedroom can qualify.

Birdwell v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc. · filed 2023-09-27(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA “prohibits discrimination in the form of ‘a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’” Howard v. HMK Holdings, LLC, 988 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). ... Here, Birdwell has sufficiently pleaded facts that plausibly allege that her request for a two-bedroom unit was necessary and reasonable. ... Hence, by requiring that Birdwell pay rent based on the two-bedroom unit rate, AvalonBay is imposing a fee “with unequal impact, imposed in return for permission to engage in conduct that, under the FHAA, a landlord is required to permit,” Mobile Home Park I, 29 F.3d at 1417. ... Therefore, Birdwell sufficiently pleads that her accommodation request was necessary and reasonable. The Court denies AvalonBay’s motion to dismiss on this ground.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in housing rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, potentially including an emotional support animal.

Cooke v. Randolph, Nebraska City Council · filed 2023-10-05(f)(3)(B)

Discriminatory housing practices include "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services" when such accommodations may be necessary to permit a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). So, the FHA requires a municipality to make exceptions from its generally applicable ordinances when necessary to give a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 77 F.3d 249, 251 (8th Cir. 1996). And a reasonable accommodation under the FHA may include an emotional support animal. See Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277, 1289 (11th Cir. 2014).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Believe TGH LLC v. Pointe Coupee Parish · filed 2023-12-19(f)(3)(B)

For these claims, Plaintiffs will have to prove that: (1) the prospective residents are handicapped or disabled as the statutes define those terms; (2) Plaintiffs requested an accommodation and Defendant refused that request; (3) the requested accommodation was reasonable; and (4) the requested accommodation “may be necessary” to afford the prospective residents with “equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, but it does not require landlords to subsidize rent or provide economic assistance beyond accommodating the disability.

Blitz v. BLDG Management Co., Inc. · filed 2023-09-21(f)(3)(B)

First, the FHA prohibits the “refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services” when necessary to allow a disabled individual “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Id. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... But, critically—and contrary to Plaintiff’s insistence in his opposition briefing—as a matter of law, landlords are under no obligation to subsidize a disabled individual’s rent or to provide economic assistance in offering a reasonable accommodation under the FHA.

To prevail on an FHA reasonable-accommodation claim, a plaintiff must request the accommodation in direct and specific terms and show that the defendant knew of the disability and its consequential limitations.

Brady v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society · filed 2023-10-02(f)(3)(B)

To prevail in a discrimination case under a reasonable accommodation theory, a plaintiff must establish both that she requested an accommodation in “direct and specific terms” and that the defendant knew of the disability and of its consequential limitations.

At the pleading stage, § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires plausible allegations that a defendant refused a reasonable accommodation that was necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Cori's Place v. The Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Nanticoke · filed 2024-02-02(f)(3)(B)

To survive a motion to dismiss” a claim of refusal to make reasonable accommodations, “a plaintiff need only plausibly plead enough facts to make out the three elements set forth in §3604(f)(3)(B): refusal, reasonable accommodation, and necessity/equal opportunity.” ... To satisfy this third element, the Complaint must plausibly plead that the requested accommodation was “necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(B); Vorchheimer, 903 F.3d at 111. ... Viewing the factual allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the court concludes that it has adequately plead this element. ... The court therefore concludes that Plaintiff has stated a 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(B) FHA claim.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when needed to give a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Jorgensen · filed 2024-03-08(f)(3)(B)

The FHA broadly prohibits discrimination in housing. In 1988, the FHA was amended to include "handicap" as a protected characteristic and to preclude "the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services" that would permit a handicapped person the "equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Here, Johnson County effectively sought to have more than two dozen group homes excluded from coverage under the state statutory fire code and the related regulations—an expansive and detailed set of standards for the safety of buildings used as residences, workplaces, or commercial enterprises. Johnson County's position suffers from a fundamental flaw: A blanket exclusion from an exhaustive regulatory scheme does not constitute a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. Rather, an appropriate accommodation entails a much more tailored and targeted modification of specific regulatory requirements permitting a particular handicapped person or a limited group of similarly situated persons to take advantage of a housing opportunity.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) defines disability discrimination to include refusing reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when they may be necessary to give a person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Levine v. Project Renewal · filed 2024-02-26(f)(3)(B)

To state a prima facie case for discrimination based on a failure to reasonably accommodate, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he suffers from a handicap as defined by the FHAA; (2) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the plaintiff's handicap [or disability]; (3) accommodation of the handicap [or disability] ‘may be necessary’ to afford plaintiff an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) defendants refused to make such accommodation. ... As with Plaintiff’s other claims for disability discrimination, Plaintiff’s allegations are nevertheless insufficient to state a claim under the FHA because he does not plead facts showing that defendants were aware of his disability or handicap, and that accommodation of his disability was necessary.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing provider to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Sanders v. AHEPA 78 VI Apartments, Inc. · filed 2024-06-14(f)(3)(B)

To prevail on a claim under the FHAA that a housing provider refused to reasonably accommodate a disability, a plaintiff must establish that (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the FHAA; (2) he requested a reasonable accommodation for such disability; (3) the requested accommodation was necessary to afford him an opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling; and (4) the defendant refused to make the requested accommodation. Furbee v. Wilson, 144 N.E.3d 801, 806 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020); 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... In sum, while Sanders’ incontinence may qualify as a physical impairment, he did not fulfill his burden of showing that it rises to the level of a disability as defined by the FHAA because it does not substantially limit a major life activity.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in housing rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Allentown Victory Church v. City of Allentown · filed 2024-07-17(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHAA, unlawful discrimination includes a “refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... The reasonable accommodation inquiry has three factors—whether the requested accommodation was “(1) reasonable and (2) necessary to (3) afford handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.” ... We use a two-step burden-shifting framework for this analysis. First, “the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that its requested accommodations are necessary to afford [handicapped] person[s] [an] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]” ... Assuming arguendo that AVC could show that its accommodation request was “reasonable” and would “afford handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing,” AVC has not shown that its accommodation is “necessary.” ... The FHAA’s “necessity element requires that an accommodation be essential, not just preferable.” ... AVC has thus not shown that a variance is “required to make [the Home] financially viable or medically effective.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) covers failures to make reasonable accommodations for a disabled individual, and a plaintiff pursuing that theory must plead a specific request and the defendant's knowledge of the disability and its limitations.

Brady v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society · filed 2024-10-08(f)(3)(B)

And both statutes define discrimination to include, among other things, a failure to make reasonable “accommodations” or “modifications” for a disabled individual. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182; 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... To prevail in a discrimination case under a reasonable accommodation theory, a plaintiff must establish both that she requested an accommodation in “direct and specific terms” and that the defendant knew of the disability and of its consequential limitations.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services as discrimination when necessary to give a handicapped individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Gonzalez v. Lexington Police Department · filed 2024-11-01(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA defines discrimination to include “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a handicapped individual] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The First Circuit has outlined the elements of such a claim as follows: ... To prevail on such a reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff must show [1] a qualifying handicap, [2] the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of that handicap, [3] a request for a specific accommodation that is both reasonable and necessary to allow the handicapped individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the particular housing, and [4] the defendant’s refusal to make the requested accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats a housing provider's refusal to make a reasonable accommodation necessary for equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as discrimination.

Clark v. GSL Properties, Inc. · filed 2024-11-27(f)(3)(B)

Housing practices considered to be discriminatory include race and sex discrimination "in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith," 42 U.S.C. § 3604; ... To assert a theory of failure to make reasonable accommodations, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the plaintiff "suffers from a [disability] as defined by the [FHA]"; (2) "the defendant 'knew or reasonably should have known' of the [disability]"; (3) "accommodation of the [disability] 'may be necessary' to afford the plaintiff an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his or her dwelling"; and (4) "the defendant 'refused to make such accommodation.'" ... However, plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to support a theory of failure to make reasonable accommodations. ... Thus, based on the context of plaintiff's allegations in the amended complaint, the Court finds that plaintiff has adequately stated an FHA discrimination claim under a theory of failure to make reasonable accommodations.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires landlords to make reasonable exceptions to housing rules or policies when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

United States v. Madison Property, L.L.C. · filed 2024-12-27(f)(3)(B)

The FHA makes it unlawful for a landlord to “refus[e] to make reasonable accommodations in rules [or] policies,” such as no-pet policies, “when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such [disabled] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) makes it unlawful not to make reasonable accommodations.

Baptist Homes, Inc. v. City of Madison, Mississippi · filed 2024-10-02(f)(3)(B)

Both the FHA and ADA make it unlawful not to make reasonable accommodations.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules or policies when necessary to give disabled people an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa · filed 2024-12-04(f)(3)(B)

Unlawful discrimination under the FHA includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules [or] policies . . . when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the disabled] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Public agencies have “an ‘affirmative duty’ . . . to reasonably accommodate disabled individuals by modifying administrative rules and policies,” including zoning ordinances. ... The scope of this duty is “highly fact-specific, requiring case-by-case determination.” ... Municipalities are not required “to make ‘fundamental’ or ‘substantial’ modifications to accommodate the handicapped . . . .” ... They are required only to make reasonable accommodations.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) bars refusing reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when needed to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Manson v. Fresno Housing Authority · filed 2025-03-21(f)(3)(B)

The FHA’s definition of prohibited discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). FEHA’s language is nearly identical. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12927(c)(1) (West 2020). Under the FHA and FEHA, plaintiffs must establish that (1) they have disabilities as defined by the relevant statute (that is, the FHA or FEHA); (2) defendants knew or reasonably should have known of their disabilities; (3) accommodation may be (or is) necessary to afford them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) defendants refused to make such accommodation. See, e.g., Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003) (outlining elements in FHA claim); Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass’n v. Fair Employment & Housing Committee, 121 Cal. App. 4th 1578 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (outlining elements in FEHA claim).

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits a housing provider from refusing reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Ricketts v. Westwood Condo Assoc. · filed 2025-03-31(f)(2)

Although Plaintiff does not specify a particular section of the FHA under which he asserts his claims, see TAC at 8–11, the Court believes he intended to assert violations of the reasonable accommodations provision, which prohibits a housing provider from discriminating against a person with a handicap by refusing “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2), (3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services as discrimination when the accommodation may be necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Johnson v. Raven Wood Homeowners Association · filed 2025-04-04(f)(3)(B)

Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” ... Based on all the circumstances, and drawing reasonable inferences in Mr. Johnson’s favor, a factfinder could conclude that the HOA’s unwillingness to download the Zoom platform on their cellphones and conduct the meeting remotely, or arrange for the annual meeting to occur at a location where cell and internet service was more reliable and Mr. Johnson would have been able to participate on Zoom with at least one person physically in the meeting connecting on Zoom with him, constituted a “denial” under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires municipalities to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give disabled people an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa · filed 2025-04-24(f)(3)(B)

As indicated above, “[a] municipality commits discrimination under the [FHA] if it refuses ‘to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the disabled] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’” Budnick, 518 F.3d at 1119 (quoting Gamble, 104 F.3d at 307); see 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires only reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act.

Buckholz v. Kelso Housing Authority · filed 2025-04-30(f)(3)(B)

“[O]nly ‘reasonable’ accommodations are required by the FHAA.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) makes it unlawful to refuse reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

CASTRO v. LANCASTER LOFT · filed 2025-09-05(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to engage in invidious discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, including by "refus[ing] to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling … ." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Here, Ms. Castro alleges that she has a serious health condition (asthma) for which she required accommodations to allow her equal opportunity to enjoy and use her apartment, that she requested accommodations (enforcement of the non-smoking provisions in the lease agreement), that Defendants refused to accommodate her, and then took various adverse actions against her, including evicting her, after she had engaged in protected activity under the FHA by seeking accommodations.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing provider to make a reasonable accommodation when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; an accommodation is necessary when it alleviates the disability's effects.

Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn., Inc. · filed 2014-08-27(f)(3)(B)

The failure to make a timely determination after meaningful review amounts to constructive denial of a requested accommodation, “as an indeterminate delay has the same effect as an outright denial.” ... Generally, housing providers need only the information necessary to apprise them of the disability and the desire and possible need for an accommodation. ... Thus, a “necessary” accommodation is one that alleviates the effects of a disability.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable disability accommodations when necessary to give a person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, but an accommodation that fundamentally alters the relevant housing program is not reasonable.

Cohen v. Monroe County · filed 2018-09-20(f)(3)(B)

The FHA prohibits discriminating against a person on the basis of a “handicap,” or a disability, by refusing to make reasonable accommodations when necessary to afford the person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. ... Because this kind of waiver “would eliminate an essential aspect of the relevant activity” -- keeping housing rates down for all employees of the Florida Keys -- we conclude that the accommodation sought by the Cohens would amount to a fundamental alteration of the program.

A person who lacks authority to grant an exception to a housing rule cannot be liable under § 3604(f)(2)(A) for failing to grant it.

Lath v. Oak Brook Condominium Owners' Association, et al. · filed 2017-03-20(f)(2)(A)

As the Association’s attorney, Bisson was never in a position to grant Lath an exception to the “no dog” policy in the first instance, which means that he cannot be liable for any violation of § 3604(f)(2)(A).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested accommodation to be necessary for a person with a disability to use and enjoy the dwelling.

LLOYD v. MANBEL DEVCO I LP · filed 2025-03-04(f)(3)(B)

Lloyd’s allegations, including but not limited to, harassment by other tenants, ERAP payments, and use of chemical pesticides by Greenscapes do not support a failure-to-accommodate claim against the Manbel defendants as Lloyd has failed to adequately show that her accommodation requests in these regards were necessary to her enjoyment of the premises as a handicap person.

Section 3604(f) requires a requested accommodation to be necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

KNIGHT · filed 2025-11-21(f)(3)(B)

The FHA’s reasonable accommodation provision requires only those accommodations that may be necessary to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. ... Accordingly, Knight fails to state a failure-to-accommodate claim under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a plaintiff seeking an accommodation to show that the requested accommodation is reasonable; approval of a narrower accommodation does not establish that a broader one is reasonable.

Crossett · filed 2025-11-25(f)(3)(B)

Crossett provides no authority suggesting the approval of a more limited accommodation establishes the reasonability of a more expansive one.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations for disabled tenants, but does not require a landlord to accept unreasonable conditions on property inspections.

Solberg v. Majerle Management · filed 2005-07-18(f)(3)(B)

We accept that they are handicapped and are entitled under both Federal law and the lease to a reasonable accommodation in the rules and practices relating to their dwelling. What they have insisted upon, however, is simply not reasonable.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested accommodation to address a need arising from the resident’s handicap.

Tagliaferri v. Winter Park Housing Authority · filed 2012-08-10(f)(3)(B)

Stephens alleged that she had difficulty accessing her apartment because of bicycles left on the staircase and requested as an accommodation that the defendants install a bike rack at her building, but the installation of the bike rack would not have addressed any special needs created by Stephens’s stated conditions of hydrocephalus and club feet.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make a reasonable accommodation as discrimination when the accommodation may be necessary for a person with a disability to use and enjoy a dwelling equally.

Jordan v. Greater Dayton Premier Management · filed 2014-03-28(f)(3)(B)

It is discriminatory to refuse “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a private landlord to make reasonable accommodations, but does not require the landlord to replace a rental subsidy controlled by a public agency.

Batista v. Cooperativa De Vivienda Jardines De San Ignacio · filed 2015-01-13(f)(3)(B)

But while the Fair Housing Act obliges private landlords to adjust their policies to make reasonable accommodations for their tenants who otherwise receive Section 8 subsidies, see 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), the Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority, not the Cooperativa, is the entity responsible for administering Section 8 benefits. ... Seeing no way this suit against the private landlord could result in an order to the administering agency for the Section 8 program to reverse course and reinstate the rental subsidy, we do not see how the requested accommodation could be a reasonable one.

A reasonable accommodation claim under § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires allegations that the tenant has a disability the landlord knew or should have known about, that the requested accommodation was necessary and reasonable, and that the landlord refused it.

El-Bey v. ADT Security Services, Inc. · filed 2022-04-18(f)(3)(B)

Plaintiff alleges that she required a ramp for the use of her wheelchair, but she does not allege that Robinson-Zenon was aware of Plaintiff’s disability, that Plaintiff requested this accommodation from Robinson-Zenon, or that Robinson-Zenon denied the request. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to detail this claim to state facts suggesting that Robinson-Zenon denied Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodation and when this denial occurred.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable accommodation claimant to show a qualifying disability, the defendant’s knowledge of it, the accommodation’s necessity and reasonableness, and the defendant’s refusal.

Gilbert v. Tucson Realty & Trust Company Management Services LLC · filed 2025-07-02(f)(3)(B)

Because Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden under all five elements, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim under § 3604(f) of the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a person seeking a reasonable accommodation from a municipality to request it so the municipality can meaningfully review it.

The City of Harvard v. Nevitt · filed 2020-10-26(f)(3)(B)

To prevail on a reasonable accommodation claim against a municipality under either the ADA or the FHAA on the basis of enforcement of a residential zoning ordinance, a party must show (1) she is a person with a disability under the ADA or FHAA, (2) she requested a reasonable accommodation for the disability, (3) the accommodation was necessary, and (4) the municipality ... refused to make the accommodation. ... And because we cannot say that the trial court’s finding in this regard was against the manifest weight of the evidence, defendant’s “reasonable accommodation” defense fails because he did not show he actually requested an accommodation such that the City had the ability to conduct a meaningful review of the request.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) can require an exception to a landlord’s rule against wall fasteners so a disabled tenant can install handrails.

Maple Tree LP, II v. Rebollo · filed 2025-08-15(f)(3)(B)

These facts support a reasonable inference that when Rebollo asked the office about handrails, she was seeking a change “‘in rules, policies, practices, or services’” to allow for the installation of handrails, making her request one for a reasonable ... accommodation under the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations necessary for a disabled tenant to use and enjoy a dwelling, including feasible elevator repairs when they are the tenant’s only reasonable means of access.

Davis v. Lane Management, LLC · filed 2007-11-06(f)(3)(B)

That quadriplegics require elevators to ascend and descend stories needs no explanation. Since SDW did not offer Plaintiff a first-story apartment, the elevator repairs were the only means of reasonable accommodation here. Such repairs were also financially feasible considering the swiftness with which Defendant SDW made them after receiving negative publicity.

Section 3604(f) requires a housing accommodation to be necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to obtain housing.

Cowart v. City of Eau Claire · filed 2008-07-16(f)

The Act applies only to accommodations that are “necessary,” meaning that, without the accommodation the plaintiff will be denied the ability to obtain housing of her choice. ... Plaintiffs’ claim fails because they have not adduced evidence regarding their alleged handicaps. In addition, they have not shown that a denial of a variance to the city ordinance prohibiting a third dog denies them the ability to obtain housing.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) can require a landlord to allow early lease termination as a reasonable accommodation for a disabled tenant who cannot access the dwelling.

Hughes v. Bransfield · filed 2012-01-11(f)(3)(B)

This Court agrees with and adopts the reasoning of the federal court in Samuelson. As in that case, the Landlord here has applied a generally applicable policy in a manner that could constitute unlawful discrimination. These facts are sufficient to state a claim under the FHAA and the VFHA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations necessary to give a disabled resident an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Montano v. Bonnie Brae Convalescent Hospital, Inc. · filed 2015-01-07(f)(3)(B)

Defendant’s conduct, by failing to reasonably accommodate plaintiffs disability, constitutes a violation of the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a parking accommodation that gives a disabled tenant preferential access or imposes an undue financial burden on the landlord.

Eddy Jean Philippeaux v. Apartment Investment and Management Company · filed 2015-01-15(f)(3)(B)

Because all residents park on levels two through seven, providing Mr. Philippeaux a ground-level parking space at no cost or at a reduced rate would place him in a better position than all other residents, disabled and non-disabled alike. ... And, as we have said, an accommodation is not reasonable if it imposes an undue financial burden on the landlord.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a condominium association to ban smoking throughout its complex as a reasonable accommodation for a resident with respiratory hypersensitivities.

Davis v. Echo Valley Condo. Ass'n · filed 2018-11-07(f)(3)(B)

But the key question is whether the accommodation she demands - banning smoking throughout the Echo Valley complex - is reasonable. As a matter of law, it is not.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a homeowners association that provides housing to make reasonable accommodations for residents with disabilities.

Sanzaro v. Ardiente Homeowners Ass'n, LLC · filed 2019-03-05(f)(3)(B)

As the HOA, Ardiente is a provider of private residential housing and is required to follow the FHA in the sale of housing and in the provision of reasonable modifications and accommodations for use and enjoyment of those properties.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires plaintiffs seeking a housing accommodation to show that, without it, they likely would be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.

Smith & Lee Associates, Inc. United States of America v. City of Taylor, Michigan · filed 1996-12-16(f)(3)(B)

Plaintiffs must show that, but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations for handicapped individuals, but does not require accommodations for religious beliefs.

Hack v. President and Fellows of Yale College · filed 1998-07-31(f)(3)(B)

The reasonable accommodations provision in the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3), pertains only to discrimination against handicapped individuals. Specifically, this subsection provides that refusal to make reasonable accommodations for a handicapped individual constitutes discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The statute cannot be construed to mean that refusal to make reasonable accommodations constitutes discrimination in any other context.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules or policies when necessary to give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Greenfield · filed 1998-09-30(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA requires an accommodation for persons with disabilities if the accommodation is (1) reasonable, and (2) necessary, (3) to afford disabled people equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a landlord that withdraws entirely from the Section 8 program to continue accepting a tenant’s Section 8 status as a reasonable accommodation for disability.

Carol Rickert & Associates v. Law · filed 2002-06-25(f)(3)(B)

As a result, the district court did not err in ruling that Landlord was not required to accept Tenant’s Section 8 status as a reasonable accommodation of her disability under the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations necessary to give a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Essling's Homes Plus, Inc. v. City of Saint Paul · filed 2004-11-12(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA requires accommodation of a handicap if it is reasonable and necessary to afford a handicapped person the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (2000). ... The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence for a jury to concludé that the accommodation of providing a second kitchen in each property is reasonable and necessary for the purposes of the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing provider to have enough information to assess a resident’s disability and need for an accommodation before it can be liable for refusing the request.

Hawn v. Shoreline Towers Phase 1 Condominium Ass'n · filed 2009-09-22(f)(3)(B)

Hawn’s refusal to comply with subsequent requests for reasonable documentation prevented Shoreline from conducting a meaningful review of Hawn’s application and thereby Shoreline could not have actually known of Hawn’s disability and the necessity of a service animal.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing reasonable accommodations needed to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Taylor v. Housing Authority of New Haven · filed 2010-03-29(f)(3)(B)

After full trial on the merits, and for the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not shown Defendants’ liability on any of the counts. While Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants programmatically applied a policy that either intentionally discriminated against disabled HCV Program participants or failed to afford them reasonable accommodations, the evidence shows no discriminatory policy or programmatic approach to disabled participants’ requests for reasonable accommodations.

A housing provider’s duty to accommodate arises when it has enough information to know of a tenant’s disability and requested accommodation; requiring an indefinite move to housing without that accommodation can constitute a constructive refusal.

United States v. Jialeah Housing Authority · filed 2011-03-22(f)(3)(B)

We conclude that at this point HHA had enough information to know of both Mr. Rodriguez’s disability and his desire for an accommodation. In other words, Mr. Rodriguez had made a specific demand sufficient to trigger HHA’s duty to provide a reasonable accommodation. ... We conclude therefore that HHA’s requirement that Rodriguez family vacate their apartment at Project 16 and move into units without the requested accommodation for an indefinite period of time constitutes at least a constructive refusal to provide the accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a plaintiff alleging failure to accommodate to show a handicap, the defendant’s knowledge of it, a potentially necessary accommodation, and the defendant’s refusal.

Logan v. Matveevskii · filed 2014-09-29(f)(3)(B)

“To state a prima facie case for discrimination based on a failure to reasonably accommodate, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he suffers from a handicap as defined by the FHAA [or a disability as defined by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act]; (2) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the plaintiffs handicap [or disability]; (3) accommodation of the handicap [or disability] ‘may be necessary’ to afford plaintiff an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) defendants refused to make such accommodation.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a medical marijuana accommodation that would fundamentally alter a housing provider’s operations.

Forest City Residential Management, Inc. v. Beasley · filed 2014-12-03(f)(3)(B)

The Court shall, per Skidmore, give weight to HUD’s conclusion that a medical marijuana accommodation is not reasonable under the Fair Housing Act because it would constitute a fundamental alteration in the nature of a PHA or owner’s operations.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a city to grant an unreasonable zoning accommodation.

Palm Partners, LLC v. City of Oakland Park · filed 2015-04-30(f)(3)(B)

Based on the evidence before it, the Court finds that no rational fact-finder could conclude that discriminatory animus was behind the City’s decision to deny Palm Partners’ application, or that its accommodation request is- reasonable..

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) allows a housing provider’s prolonged delay in approving a reasonable accommodation to count as a constructive denial.

Arnal v. Aspen View Condominium Ass'n · filed 2016-12-27(f)(3)(B)

Until an accommodation request is denied, there is no discrimination under the FHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... I find that a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants’ continued efforts to seek additional information, and its continued delay in granting the accommodation, constitutes an actual or constructive denial. Thus, summary judgment on this prong is denied.

Section 3604(f)(3) prohibits refusing a reasonable disability accommodation needed for equal use and enjoyment of a dwelling; whether an accommodation is reasonable requires a fact-specific inquiry.

Lau v. Honolulu Park Place, AOAO · filed 2019-07-16(f)(3)

Whether the accommodation requested was a reasonable one is a question that cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.

Section 3604(f)(3) permits a reasonable accommodation claim without a specific request when a housing provider’s categorical policy makes the request futile.

Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. Cuomo · filed 2019-09-30(f)(3)

In light of these statements, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the ACF Defendants had categorical policies against wheelchairs and that any request for a reasonable accommodation would have been futile. Accordingly, their failure to specifically ask for an accommodation does not render their allegations insufficient, and the ACF Defendants’ motions to dismiss the reasonable accommodation claim are denied.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) can require an exception to a condominium rule when the exception is needed to give residents with disabilities equal use and enjoyment of housing amenities.

Phillips v. Acacia on the Green Condominium Association, Inc. · filed 2019-10-10(f)(3)(B)

Defendants’ argument that all residents are bound by the rule that prohibits cooking on patios or balconies is no answer to Plaintiffs’ claim that, under the FHA, they should be granted a reasonable accommodation, i.e., exception to the rule.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a defendant to refuse a requested reasonable accommodation; a housing authority’s failure to compel a landlord to make requested physical changes does not establish that refusal.

WOMACK v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CHESTER COUNTY · filed 2020-06-23(f)(3)(B)

To state a failure to accommodate claim under the FHA, a plaintiff must allege that the Cefendant refused to make the requested reasonable modifications. Here, the Womacks allege that they requested the TC make physical modifications to their home and HACC failed to force the TC io comply with their requests. This does not allege a refusal on the part of HACC, and accordingly fails to state a claim.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require an applicant seeking a reasonable housing accommodation to prove that the rule to be accommodated is discriminatory.

A. & D. Carunchio v. Swarthmore Borough Council & Headstrong Foundation · filed 2020-08-11(f)(3)(B)

Headstrong was not required to establish that the Ordinance’s definition of “family” is discriminatory against cancer patients.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a causal link between a disability and a requested housing accommodation and creates no separate liability for a landlord’s failure to engage in an interactive process.

Howard v. Hmk Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-02-23(f)(3)(B)

The plaintiff’s disability must cause the need for an accommodation in the “rules, policies, practices, or services.” ... In sum, the FHAA does not refer to an interactive process or base liability on a landlord’s failure to interact, so there is no such liability under the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires proof that the defendant knew or should have known of a qualifying disability and refused a reasonable accommodation needed to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Carolyn Frost Keenan v. River Oaks Property Owners, Inc. · filed 2022-03-17(f)(3)(B)

Thus, to establish her claim of discrimination under section 3604(f), Keenan must prove: (1) that she or a “person residing in or intending to reside in” her dwelling is “handicapped,” as defined in section 3602(h); (2) that ROPO knew or should reasonably have been expected to know of the disability; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that ROPO refused to make the requested accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) can require a landlord to accommodate a tenant’s disability by accepting a housing voucher when the request is reasonable and necessary for the tenant to use and enjoy the dwelling.

Arnold v. Elmington Property Management LLC · filed 2022-07-18(f)(3)(B)

The court is therefore unpersuaded by Elmington’s argument that Salute requires a finding that Arnold’s request that Elmington accept his Section 8 housing voucher is categorically unreasonable.

A claim under § 3604(f)(3)(B) can be plausibly pleaded when a requested parking accommodation is reasonable and necessary and the housing provider leaves the request ungranted for months.

Salehi v. Lakeview Terrace Homeowners Association · filed 2022-07-29(f)(3)(B)

The Court concludes the facts alleged are sufficient at this stage to show the Association denied the request, and it DENIES the motion to dismiss the FHAA claim.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits a housing cooperative from refusing to spend corporate funds on reasonable accommodations in common areas for residents with disabilities.

United Veterans Mutual Housing No. 2 Corp. v. New York City Commission On Human Rights · filed 1994-08-29(f)(3)(B)

Thus, the petitioner’s policy of refusing to expend corporate funds to construct, modify, maintain, or insure any improvements to the common grounds or other common areas of Bell Park Gardens to accommodate the needs of its residents with disabilities clearly violates both the Federal Fair Housing Act (see, 42 USC § 3604 [f] [3] [B]) and the applicable provisions of the Administrative Code (see, Administrative Code § 8-107 [5], [15]; § 8-102 [18]).

Section 3604(f) can require a housing provider to accommodate a resident’s disability-related parking needs.

Kaatz v. Kingsbrook M.H.C., LLC · filed 2023-03-15(f)

For starters, Kaatz has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 “makes it unlawful to ‘discriminate against any person . . . in the provision of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling because of a disability of . . . a person residing in . . . that dwelling.” See Kooman v. Boulder Bluff Condos., 833 F. App’x 623, 626 (6th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)). ... So at least on these facts, the same result seems likely here.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations that directly ameliorate a tenant’s handicap, but does not require a landlord to accept a housing voucher to address the tenant’s lack of money to pay rent.

Klossner v. IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC · filed 2023-04-10(f)(3)(B)

We conclude that while the statute requires a landlord to make reasonable accommodations that directly ameliorate the handicap of a tenant, the obligation does not extend to alleviating a tenant’s lack of money to pay rent.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested disability accommodation to be necessary for equal use and enjoyment of a dwelling and reasonable in light of its benefits and burdens.

Gamane v. Diamond · filed 2023-06-30(f)(3)(B)

Therefore, on the current record, because Plaintiffs fail to show that a cat is a necessary and reasonable accommodation, the Court cannot conclude that they are likely to succeed on the merits.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a landlord to rent two apartments under one housing voucher when doing so would impose an undue financial burden.

Michel-Wiggins v. Jes Holdings LLC · filed 2025-05-27(f)(3)(B)

Plaintiff’s requested accommodation is not reasonable on its face as it would impose an undue financial burden on defendants by requiring them to rent two apartments for only one housing voucher.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a tenant seeking a reasonable accommodation to identify the rule or practice at issue, describe the requested accommodation, and initially show that it is reasonable and may be necessary.

W&W Housing v. Hale · filed 2026-01-29(f)(3)(B)

Thus, Defendant must identify a generally applicable rule or practice from which he seeks relief by way of a reasonable accommodation, identify the requested accommodation and make an initial showing that it is reasonable and may be necessary. Defendant has not met his initial burden of production.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits handicap-based discrimination in the rental of a dwelling or provision of related services or facilities, including sufficiently severe disability harassment that interferes with a tenant's enjoyment of the home.

Neudecker v. Boisclair Corporation · filed 2003-12-08(f)(2)

The FHA prohibits discrimination, based on handicap, against any person with respect to the rental of a dwelling or the provision of related services or facilities. ... Based on the foregoing, we conclude that disability harassment in the housing context is actionable under the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act, and that Neudecker’s allegations state such a claim.

Section 3604(f)(2) protects any person from disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental, or in related services or facilities, and does not require an actual intent to rent or buy; testers may enforce that right.

Smith v. Pacific Properties & Development Corp. · filed 2004-01-26(f)(2)

The district court therefore erred as a matter of law in interpreting § 3604(f)(2) to preclude tester standing, and as a consequence, DRAC’s representational standing. ... The history and language of the FHA and the FHAA make clear that testers fall within the protected group of “any person[s]” that may enforce rights created by § 3604(f)(2) when they are violated by discriminatory housing conditions.

Section 3604(f)(1) requires rental activity to challenge discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, while § 3604(f)(2) can protect a visitor who cannot access the privileges of a rental because of architectural barriers defined in § 3604(f)(3)(C).

Bowman v. SWBC Real Estate Services LLC · filed 2024-03-14(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(C)

Section 3604(f)(1) holds that it is unlawful “to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make available or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a [person’s] handicap.” ... Bowman has no standing to challenge barriers in an apartment under section 3604(f)(1) which seems to require contractual consideration. ... Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a [person’s] handicap.” ... So, whether a plaintiff has demonstrated intent to rent or not—48a concrete injury can be found under § 3604(f)(2) if a plaintiff is unable to access “the privileges of a rental of a dwelling.”

Section 3604(c) gives a person who reads a housing advertisement indicating a racial preference standing to sue even if the person was not looking for housing.

Luther M. Ragin, Jr. v. Macklowe · filed 1993-09-29(c)

There is no significant difference between the statutorily recognized injury suffered by the tester in Havens Realty and the injury suffered by the Ragins and the Cuylers, who were confronted by advertisements indicating a preference based on race.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested reasonable accommodation to be necessary to afford a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Magee v. Boston Land Co. · filed 2004-01-26(f)(3)(B)

With respect to Magee’s contention that BLC impermissibly denied his requests for a key to the back door of his building and for a parking space in the lot behind the building, Magee has neglected to submit any medical or other trustworthy documentation establishing that his condition requires him to use the building’s back entrance. He has thus failed to show, as required by the Act, that such accommodations are “necessary to afford [him] equal opportunity to use and enjoy [the] dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (2000).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing accommodation to be reasonable and necessary to give handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and the claimant bears the burden of proving necessity.

Cimarron Foothills Community Ass'n v. Kippen · filed 2003-12-10(f)(3)(B)

Having failed to demonstrate the necessity of their proposed accommodation, the Kippens are not entitled, under the FHAA, to a waiver of the relevant CR&R’s.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable accommodation when it is necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to obtain and enjoy housing, which means the accommodation must directly ameliorate the disability’s effect rather than merely relieve a general inconvenience or expense.

Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2006-09-26(f)(3)(B)

Second, the requested accommodation must be “necessary,” meaning that, without the accommodation, the plaintiff will be denied an equal opportunity to obtain the housing of her choice. ... In addition, the FHAA links the term “necessary” to the goal of “equal opportunity.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The “equal opportunity” element limits the accommodation duty so that not every rule that creates a general inconvenience or expense to the disabled needs to be modified. Instead, the statute requires only accommodations necessary to ameliorate the effect of the plaintiffs disability so that she may compete equally with the non-disabled in the housing market.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested housing accommodation to be essential to give a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, considering adequate alternatives offered.

Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Associati · filed 2018-09-05(f)(3)(B)

Here, the Act tells us what to look for: an “accommodation[ ] . . . [that] may be necessary to afford [the disabled] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The text pegs the necessity to the goal of providing the particular tenant with equal housing opportunity. ... The landlord has to offer at least one of the accommodations, but not both. If she does offer one of them, she has not “refus[ed] to make reasonable accommodations . . . [that] may be necessary to afford [the tenant] equal [housing] opportunity.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (emphasis added). ... Gauging necessity, then, requires considering whether another alternative on offer satisfies the goal of equal housing opportunity for that tenant.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations that are necessary—meaning essential, not merely preferable—to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe · filed 2019-04-25(f)(3)(B)

Prohibited discrimination under the FHA includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” ... However, the FHA’s necessity element requires that an accommodation be essential to the equal enjoyment from the property, not just preferable. ... We find that Brooke failed to prove that an accommodation from Arapahoe’s ban on certain breeds of dogs was essential to Brooke’s equal enjoyment of his property.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested reasonable accommodation to be necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, which entails a but-for causation link between the accommodation and the harm preventing equal enjoyment.

Madej v. Jeff Maiden · filed 2020-02-24(f)(3)(B)

Even if the Act applies, the Madejs still must show that their “accommodation” (a chip-seal alternative that does not use asphalt) is “necessary to afford [Ms. Madej] equal opportunity to use and enjoy” her home. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). We have noted that this “necessity element” mandates “a causation inquiry that examines whether the requested accommodation or modification would redress injuries that otherwise would prevent a disabled resident from receiving the same enjoyment from the property as a non-disabled person would receive.” Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass’n, 760 F.3d 531, 541 (6th Cir. 2014). In other words, “[n]ecessity functions as a but-for causation requirement, tying the needed accommodation to equal housing opportunity.” Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Ass’n, 903 F.3d 100, 110 (3d Cir. 2018).

A reasonable housing accommodation must be necessary—indispensable or essential—to achieve equal housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Cruz v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo · filed 2022-09-29(f)(3)(B)

These same evidentiary concerns persist in the Court’s assessment of Plaintiff’s FHA claim. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that the requested 90-day voucher extension is “necessary (or indispensable or essential) to achieving the objective of equal housing opportunities between those with disabilities and those without.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make a reasonable accommodation as discrimination when the accommodation may be necessary, with necessity requiring a showing that the accommodation would redress barriers to equal housing opportunity.

Dayton Veterans Residences Ltd. v. Dayton Metro. Housing Authority · filed 2023-11-21(f)(3)(B)

The FHA defines “discrimination” to include the “refusal to make reasonable accommodations . . . when such accommodations may be necessary.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) (emphasis added). ... None of these arguments change our conclusion. First, though the FHA uses “may be necessary,” regulations implementing the ADA—also applicable here—employ a “was necessary” formulation. ... But inherent in the application of the FHA’s definition is the issue of whether the accommodation at issue “was” or “is” necessary. ... At bottom, the necessity element is a causation inquiry that asks whether the accommodation “would”—not might—redress injuries inhibiting disabled residents’ enjoyment of their property. ... Accordingly, Freedom’s Path needed to show that, but for the accommodation it sought, disabled veterans would likely have been denied an equal opportunity to access housing. ... The district court accurately apprised the jury of these legal principles in using the “was necessary” formulation.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing provider to make reasonable accommodations when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Wg Scottsdale LLC · filed 2023-10-17(f)(3)(B)

“Under the relevant federal and state acts, Southwest had the burden to prove that an accommodation denied to a disabled person was “necessary.” ... “To prove that an accommodation is necessary, plaintiffs must show that, but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.” ... Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Southwest, see EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009), a reasonable jury could find that absent an interpreter, the applicant likely would have been denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the facility. See Giebeler, 343 F.3d at 1155–56; Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley LLC, 862 F.3d 1006, 1010–11 (9th Cir. 2017).”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing-related accommodation to be necessary—meaning it must alleviate the effects of a disability and address needs created by it—to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Dothan, Alabama · filed 2024-01-31(f)(3)(B)

“The necessity element focuses on the relationship between the requested accommodation and the plaintiff’s disability.” ... “The accommodation must (1) actually alleviate the effects of the plaintiff’s disability and (2) address the needs created by the plaintiff’s disability.” ... “Thus, the district court did not err in denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment, nor in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs-Appellants’ failure-to-accommodate claim. We affirm the district court’s judgment.”

A housing accommodation or modification must be reasonable and necessary to provide a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing, and necessity requires a direct amelioration of the disability's effect.

Siguel · filed 2026-02-26(f)(3)(A) and (f)(3)(B)

Per Bryant Woods, then, an accommodation or modification is “necessary” when it provides a “direct amelioration of a disability's effect.” Id.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested housing accommodation to be necessary for equal use and enjoyment of the home; the court held that waiving the city's pit-bull variance requirements was not shown necessary.

Hinckley · filed 2026-03-31(f)(3)(B)

Turning to the statutory text, Hinckley is required to prove that she was discriminated against, which includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... And she has not shown that exclusion from the variance requirements is necessary to attain an equal opportunity to enjoy her home.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a requested reasonable accommodation to be the best or only way to meet a resident’s disability-related housing need.

Kuhn ex rel. Khun v. McNary Estates Homeowners Ass'n · filed 2017-01-12(f)(3)(B)

Defendants would have this Court hold that a requested accommodation is “necessary” under the FHAA only if there is no other accommodation that would impose a lighter burden on the housing provider. That is not the law.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires an accommodation that may be necessary to give a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; the accommodation need not be absolutely necessary.

Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v. Bonesteel · filed 2019-05-09(f)(3)(B)

In our view, such a standard is inconsistent with the plain language of the FHA and the HRL, which requires only a determination that an accommodation " may be necessary" (42 USC § 3604 [f] [3] [B] [emphasis added]; see Executive Law § 296 [18] [2]; see generally Samiento v World Yacht Inc. , 10 NY3d 70, 77-78 [2008]).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a direct link between a requested accommodation and an equal opportunity for disabled people to use and enjoy housing.

Group Home on Gibson Island, LLC v. Gibson Island Corporation · filed 2023-11-16(f)(3)(B)

And so, to prevail on their reasonable accommodation claim here, Plaintiffs must show, among other things, that the removal of the four conditions that they challenge in this case is necessary to provide their disabled residents with an equal opportunity to housing.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires an accommodation to be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; improving quality of life alone does not suffice.

In the Matter of Gendell · filed 2024-08-01(f)(3)(B)

In other words, the Board properly considered whether the requested accommodation was necessary to allow Appellants’ sons to use and enjoy the property to an equal extent as non-disabled individuals.

Section 3604(a) covers discriminatory conduct making a dwelling effectively unavailable, while § 3604(b) protects equal treatment in the terms, conditions, privileges, and services of rental housing after tenancy begins.

Housing Rights Center v. Sterling · filed 2004-06-02(a), (b)

The Court finds these factual allegations sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether Defendants made the apartment unavailable to High based on racially discriminatory motives in violation of § 3604(a). ... Based on the foregoing, High has presented sufficient evidence to suggest he may have been subjected to less favorable “terms, conditions or privileges” with respect to the apartment or the eviction proceedings brought against him than other tenants based on his race.

Section 3604 applies to sale or rental transactions, or to transactions that make housing unavailable, not to refinancing an already-owned home.

Austin v. Miller · filed 2022-04-13(a) and (c)

Both the plain language of § 3604 and related regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) indicate § 3604 applies only to sale or rental transactions, or to transactions that have an effect of making housing “unavailable” to a plaintiff, see 42 U.S.C. § 3604; 24 C.F.R. § 100.70(a) (interpreting § 3604(a) as applying to “word[s] or conduct” that “restrict or attempt to restrict the choices of a person . . . in connection with seeking, negotiating for, buying[,] or renting a dwelling”)), whereas § 3605 covers other “residential real estate-related transactions,” see 42 U.S.C. § 3605, such as appraisals conducted in connection with the “making or purchasing of loans or providing other financial assistance . . . [f]or purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing or maintaining a dwelling” already owned, see 24 C.F.R. § 100.115.

Section 3604(b) permits a disparate treatment claim when renters plausibly allege that comparable renters received different treatment because of race.

Blackburn v. Webb · filed 2024-02-01(b)

To support a claim of disparate treatment under the FHA, Plaintiffs must show they were “similarly situated” to other renters and were treated differently on account of their race. ... Plaintiffs state a plausible § 3604(b) claim.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C)(i) requires public and common use areas of covered multifamily dwellings to be readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities; steps at unit entrances can violate that requirement.

United States v. Quality Built Construction, Inc. · filed 2003-11-10(f)(3)(C)(i)

The Court finds that Defendants mere assertion does not create a material fact that the step-up into the units is “readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.” Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs motion for liability for violations of § 3604(f)(3)(C)(i).

Section 3604(f)(3)(C)(i) requires a stair landing shared by two apartment units to be accessible as a common-use area.

United States v. Edward Rose & Sons, Dorchen/martin Associates, Incorporated Eckert/wordell Architects, Pc Gerald Peters · filed 2004-08-25(f)(3)(C)(i)

Our ruling is narrow; we simply hold in this case that because the two apartments share the stair landing, the stair landing qualifies as a “common area” that must be accessible.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C)(i) requires common-use portions of covered multifamily dwellings to be readily accessible and usable by handicapped persons; a stair landing shared by two apartment units is a common area subject to that requirement.

United States v. Edward Rose and Sons · filed 2004-08-25(f)(3)(C)(i)

share the stair landing makes the space a common area.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in the common areas of a multi-unit dwelling to give a handicapped person an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling, but it does not require prohibiting other tenants' activities in their private units.

Petramala v. Phoenix, City of · filed 2021-03-26(f)(3)(B)

Next, Plaintiff bases his claim of failure to reasonably accommodate a disability on Troska’s refusal to prohibit Plaintiff’s neighbors from smoking in their apartments (e.g. Compl. ¶ 7), but that refusal in and of itself is not actionable. The FHA provides that, with regard to common areas of a multi-unit dwelling, a landlord must make reasonable accommodations to allow a “handicapped” person equal opportunity to enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). Such an accommodation does not extend to a prohibition on others’ activities in their private units.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C)(i) requires common use areas, including stair landings shared by multiple apartments, to be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.

Nelson v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 2009-03-26(f)(3)(C)(i)

The Secretary’s finding that the stair landings are “common use” areas shared by multiple apartments is supported by substantial evidence. The FHA requires that “common use” areas be accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.

Section 3604(f)(3) treats a discriminatory act as a failure to design and construct, so later effects of inaccessible design do not themselves constitute a continuing violation.

United States v. Taigen & Sons, Inc. · filed 2003-09-29(f)(3)

Rather, the Fair Housing Act, § 3604(f)(3), refers only to the "failure to design and construct."

Section 3604(f)(3)(C) treats the failure to design and construct a multifamily dwelling to FHA accessibility standards as the discriminatory practice, which ends when the construction phase is completed and the last certificate of occupancy is issued.

Garcia v. Brockway · filed 2007-09-20(f)(3)(C)

The statute of limitations is thus triggered at the conclusion of the design-and-construction phase, which occurs on the date the last certificate of occupancy is issued.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C) requires covered multifamily dwellings to be designed and constructed with specified accessibility features, and a private claim for failure to do so must be filed within two years after the construction phase ends.

Garcia v. Brockway · filed 2008-05-13(f)(3)(C)

The FHA prohibits the design and construction of multi-family dwellings that do not have certain listed accessibility features. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C). ... As both district courts held, an aggrieved person must bring a private civil action under the FHA for a failure to properly design and construct within two years of the completion of the construction phase, which concludes on the date that the last certificate of occupancy is issued.

The design-and-construction accessibility requirements apply only in connection with designing and constructing a covered dwelling, so they do not impose liability on a subsequent owner uninvolved in that design or construction.

Harding v. Orlando Apartments, LLC · filed 2014-04-14(f)(3)(C)

The design-and-construction guidelines are prefaced with the phrase “in connection with the design and construction” of a covered dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C) (emphasis added). This phrase plainly sets a significant limitation on the guidelines’ application, and there are substantial justifications for this limitation. ... We therefore conclude that Harding cannot state a claim under the FHA against BHDR, which was not involved in the design or construction of the District, by reference to § 3604(f)(3)(C).

Section 3604(f)(3) requires covered multifamily dwellings built after March 13, 1991 to include specified accessibility features, making noncompliant design and construction unlawful.

United States v. Shanrie Co., Inc. · filed 2009-08-17(f)(3)

The FHA provides that discrimination pursuant to the Act includes a failure to design and construct covered multifamily dwellings built after March 13, 1991 in compliance with the accessibility features specified in the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3). ... Therefore, only the ground floor units are subject to the accessibility requirements contained in the FHA. ... The United States asserts, and this Court agrees, that the design and construction of Rockwood violates the accessibility requirements of the FHA. ... The United States is granted summary judgment on each of these issues.

Section 3604(f)(1) treats the sale or rental of an inaccessible multifamily unit as the discriminatory act, which is complete once the unit is sold or rented.

Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Village of Olde St. Andrews, Inc. · filed 2006-12-15(f)(1)

We find, however, that the view that the statute of limitations is tolled until the noncompliant conditions are remedied is equally inconsistent with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). The Fair Housing Act specifies that the two year limitations period begins to run at the termination of the alleged act of discrimination. In the context of the construction and design of multifamily dwelling units that are inaccessible to disabled individuals, the discriminatory act occurs during the sale or rental of that unit. Thus, once a unit has been sold or rented, the discriminatory act is complete.

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) requires a housing provider to permit, at the disabled person's expense, reasonable modifications that may be necessary for full enjoyment of the premises.

JONES v. FEATHERSTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC · filed 2023-02-17(f)(3)(A)

To prevail on a 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A) claim, Jones must establish that (1) he is disabled or handicapped within the meaning of the FHA; (2) he requested a modification of the premises; (3) such modification was reasonable; (4) such modification was necessary to afford full enjoyment of the premises; (5) Featherstone refused to permit the modification to be made at Jones’s expense; and (6) Featherstone knew or should have known about Jones’s disability at the time of the refusal.

Section 3604(a) and (b) require a discriminatory effect on housing availability or housing services; insufficient evidence of such an effect defeats the claim.

Moua v. City of Chico · filed 2004-04-09(a), (b)

Since plaintiffs have not come forward with sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that the municipal defendants provide police services in a manner causing a disparate impact on non-English-speaking Hmong residents, summary judgment will be entered on their FHA and FEHA claims.

Section 3604(a) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race and, under the court’s disparate-impact framework, requires a facially neutral policy or practice causing a significant adverse impact on a protected group.

Ventura Village, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2004-05-18(a)

In a disparate impact case, the court first examines whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case by showing that (1) the defendant maintains a facially neutral policy or practice which (2) has a significant adverse impact on members of a protected minority group.

Section 3604(a) permits disparate-impact housing claims, applying a burden-shifting framework under which the defendant must show a legitimate, necessary policy justification and the plaintiff may prevail by identifying a viable less-discriminatory alternative.

Darst-Webbe Tenant Ass'n Board v. St. Louis Housing Authority · filed 2005-08-08(a)

To establish a prima facie FHA claim under Oti Kaga, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the objected-to action results in, or can be predicted to result in, a disparate impact upon protected classes compared to a relevant population. ... Under the second step, the Housing Authority must demonstrate that the proposed action has a “manifest relationship” to the legitimate, non-discriminatory policy objectives and “is justifiable on the ground it is necessary to” the attainment of these objectives. Oti Kaga, 342 F.3d at 883. If the Housing Authority makes this showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiffs to show that a viable alternative means is available to achieve those legitimate policy objectives without discriminatory effects. Id.

Section 3604(a) allows disparate-impact liability for a facially neutral housing action that causes, or is predicted to cause, a significant adverse impact on a protected class, without requiring proof of intentional discrimination.

Charleston Housing Authority v. United States Department of Agriculture · filed 2005-08-18(a)

To establish a prima facie, Fair Housing Act, disparate impact claim under Oti Kaga, Inc. v. South Dakota Housing Dev. Auth., 342 F.3d 871, 883 (8th Cir. 2003), the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the objected-to action results in, or can be predicted to result in, a disparate impact upon a protected class compared to a relevant population as a whole. ... Under United States v. City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179, 1184 (8th Cir. 1974), the Tenants “need prove no more than that the conduct of the defendant actually or predictably results in discrimination; in other words, that it has a discriminatory effect.”

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable because of race, and a sufficiently significant discriminatory effect can establish a prima facie violation without proof of discriminatory intent.

Hallmark Developers v. Fulton County, Georgia · filed 2005-09-12(a)

Various courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have concluded that proof of discriminatory purpose is not necessary to establish a Title VIII violation; rather, the plaintiff need only prove that the challenged action had a discriminatory effect to establish a prima facie violation of Title VIII. ... The evidence of disparate impact in this case is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. No significant impact has been shown. ... In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ showing of discriminatory impact is too weak to establish a prima facie case under the Fair Housing Act. There is no evidence that Defendant’s action in denying Plaintiffs’ rezoning application had the effect of perpetuating segregation.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race and, assuming disparate-impact claims are available, requires evidence that the challenged policy has a disproportionate effect on the protected group.

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · filed 2011-04-08(a)

Section 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful “To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). ... As the matter has not been briefed and its resolution is unnecessary to the outcome, however, we shall, as in 2922 Sherman Avenue Tenants’ Association, simply assume the availability of the disparate impact theory. ... In any event, we find the “resource gap” an inappropriate benchmark. ... On the less implausible size-of-grant standard, the evidence flatly contradicts their claim. As a result, plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Section 3604(a) permits disparate-impact claims based on facially neutral housing policies that significantly adversely affect protected groups, subject to a burden-shifting analysis requiring a legitimate objective and a viable less-discriminatory alternative.

Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement · filed 2010-09-01(a)

The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) prohibits property owners and municipalities from blocking or impeding the provision of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)–(b). ... We apply a three-step analysis to Appellants’ disparate impact claim. First, Appellants must establish a prima facie case, which requires showing “that the objected-to action[s] result[ed] in . . . a disparate impact upon protected classes compared to a relevant population.” ... Stated differently, Appellants “must show a facially neutral policy ha[d] a significant adverse impact on members of a protected minority group.” ... Appellants are not required to show that the policy or practice was formulated with discriminatory intent. ... If Appellants establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the City to demonstrate that its policy or practice had “‘manifest relationship’” to a legitimate, non-discriminatory policy objective and was necessary to the attainment of that objective. ... If the City shows that its actions were justified, then the burden shifts back to Appellants to show “a viable alternative means” was available to achieve the legitimate policy objective without discriminatory effects.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable because of race and permits a prima facie FHA claim when a housing policy disproportionately burdens a protected racial group, without proof of discriminatory intent.

Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Township of Mount Holly · filed 2011-09-13(a)

The FHA makes it unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent . . . or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). A dwelling can be made otherwise unavailable by, among other things, action that limits the availability of affordable housing. ... The FHA can be violated by either intentional discrimination or if a practice has a disparate impact on a protected class. ... Thus the Residents can establish a prima facie case of disparate impact by showing that minorities are disproportionately burdened by the redevelopment plan or that the redevelopment plan “[falls] more harshly” on minorities.

Section 3604(a) permits disparate-impact claims, and those claims follow a three-step burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff shows discriminatory effect, the defendant shows a substantial legitimate nondiscriminatory interest, and the plaintiff may show a less discriminatory alternative.

Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs · filed 2014-03-24(a)

We now adopt the burden-shifting approach found in 24 C.F.R. § 100.500 for claims of disparate impact under the FHA.

Section 3604 permits a disparate-impact claim without proof of discriminatory intent, subject to a burden-shifting framework requiring a viable alternative that achieves the defendant’s legitimate objective without discriminatory effects.

Folger v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2014-08-22(a)

With respect to the disparate-impact claim of Count I, the three-part burden-shifting analysis first applied to employment discrimination claims also governs here. ... But discriminatory intent need not be shown. ... If the defendant establishes that its actions were justified, then the plaintiff must show a viable alternative means was available to achieve the defendant’s objective without imposing discriminatory effects.

Section 3604(a) prohibits intentional housing discrimination, but does not authorize disparate-impact liability.

American Insurance Association v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2014-11-03(a)

In addition to the clear meaning of the FHA’s plain text, the striking similarities between the statutory language of § 3604(a) and the disparate-treatment provisions of Title VII and the ADEA leave this Court with no doubt that Congress intended the FHA to prohibit intentional discrimination only.

Section 3604 permits disparate-impact claims under the Fair Housing Act, at least under then-binding Seventh Circuit precedent.

County of Cook v. Bank of America Corp. · filed 2015-03-19

Unless or until the Supreme Court holds that the FHA does not permit disparate impact claims, I must apply binding Seventh Circuit precedent holding that such claims are cognizable.

Section 3604(a) permits disparate-impact claims because its phrase “otherwise make unavailable” focuses on the consequences of an action rather than the actor’s intent.

Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. · filed 2015-06-25(a)

Applied here, the logic of Griggs and Smith provides strong support for the conclusion that the FHA encompasses disparate-impact claims. Congress’ use of the phrase “otherwise make unavailable” refers to the consequences of an action rather than the actor’s intent. See United States v. Giles, 300 U. S. 41, 48 (1937) (explaining that the “word ‘make’ has many meanings, among them ‘[t]o cause to exist, appear or occur’ ” (quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary 1485 (2d ed. 1934))). This results-oriented language counsels in favor of recognizing disparate-impact liability. See Smith, supra, at 236.

Section 3604(a) bars a city from defeating a disparate-impact housing claim based on a rezoning denial merely by pointing to similarly priced and similarly modeled housing elsewhere in the general area.

Avenue 6E Investments, LLC v. City of Yuma · filed 2016-03-25(a)

We reject that ground and hold that when a developer seeks to rezone land to permit the construction of housing that is more affordable, a city cannot defeat a showing of disparate impact on a minority group by simply stating that other similarly-priced and similarly-modelled housing is available in the general area.

Section 3604(a) reaches municipal land-use decisions that make housing unavailable or deny it on a protected-ground basis, including claims based on disparate impact.

Avenue 6E Investments, LLC v. City of Yuma · filed 2017-05-01(a)

Under the FHA it is unlawful to “make unavailable or deny” a “dwelling” to a person because of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. ... What it means to “make unavailable or deny” a dwelling is not specifically defined in the statute, but municipal land use decisions that block or impede the provision of housing are included. ... A plaintiff can establish a FHA violation under a theory of disparate treatment or disparate impact. ... The court concludes that Plaintiffs’ evidence is sufficient to show a prima facie case of disparate impact.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental and in related services or facilities, and section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make necessary reasonable accommodations as discrimination; the required accommodation is reasonable, not necessarily the person’s ideal accommodation.

White Cliffs at Dover v. Bulman · filed 2004-07-16(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

Thus, because White Cliffs offered reasonable alternative accommodations, it did not violate the FHAA by declining Bulman’s request to place her garbage in the laundry room.