42 U.S.C. § 3604

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires housing providers to make 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.

Castellano v. Access Premier Realty, Inc. · filed 2016-04-20(f)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B)

Even though refusal may be accompanied by other acts, refusal alone is violative of § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Plaintiffs have established a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services as discrimination when the accommodation is necessary for equal use and enjoyment of a dwelling.

Giardiello v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C. · filed 2017-08-18(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the FHA (2) the defendants knew or should reasonably have known of his disability; (3) he requested a particular accommodation that is both reasonable and necessary to allow him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the housing in question; and (4) the defendants refused to make the requested accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) and (B) require only reasonable modifications or accommodations so that a person with a disability can use and enjoy a dwelling.

Opinion No. (2010) · filed 2010-04-22(f)(3)(A)-(B)

The federal statute, § 3604(3)(A) and (B), requires nothing more than "reasonable accommodation."

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a municipality to make a reasonable accommodation for a person with a handicap, but it need not grant an exception that is infeasible, impractical, or unduly burdensome.

Tellurian U.C.A.N., Inc. v. Goodrich · filed 1993-06-10(f)(3)(B)

The accommodation provision in 42 U.S.C. § 3604 does not require a municipality to surrender its discretion under sec. 62.23(7)(i)l., Stats., whether to grant an exception to the distance restriction. ... If the requested exception is infeasible or impractical or would impose undue financial or administrative burdens, the municipality need not grant it. ... In the absence of such problems, accommodation by a grant is reasonable.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires housing providers to make 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.

Woodside Village v. Hertzmark, No. Sph9204-65092 (Jun. 22, 1993) · filed 1993-06-22(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA prohibits various types of discrimination including "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." ... In this case I conclude that the plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the defendant and his dog as required by the Fair Housing Amendments Act.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable accommodation only when the disability caused the tenant's inability to comply with a generally applicable tenancy rule.

Williamsport Housing Authority v. Matthews · filed 1993-03-15(f), (f)(3)(B)

Because her disability was not the cause of her breach of the lease, the question of Williamsport Housing Authority providing reasonable accommodations for her disability is irrelevant.

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

City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation v. Washington State Building Code Council · filed 1994-03-14(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate handicapped persons. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Edmonds must satisfy the FHAA standards.

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

City of Edmonds v. Washington State Building Code Council · filed 1994-03-14(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate handicapped persons. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Exempting Edmonds’ ordinance as an occupancy restriction would undermine the purposes of the FHAA. ... Applying the exemption would insulate these single-family residential zones from the sweep of FHAA requirements. Courts must ask whether a city’s zoning satisfies FHAA standards, or whether a city has to alter neutral zoning policies to reasonably accommodate and integrate handicapped persons. The answers will vary depending on the facts of a given case. But these questions must be posed, or the policies the FHAA seeks to enforce will be frustrated.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing accommodation for a person with a handicap to be both reasonable and necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; necessity concerns equal opportunity rather than equal treatment.

Proviso Ass'n of Retarded Citizens v. Village of Westchester · filed 1996-02-06(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, the necessity issue concerns equality of opportunity, not equality of treatment.

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) and (B) require a reasonable modification or accommodation only when it is necessary to give a person with a handicap full enjoyment of a dwelling or an equal opportunity to use and enjoy it.

Gavin v. Spring Ridge Conservancy, Inc. · filed 1995-12-11(f)(3)(A) and (B)

the statute does not talk in terms of accommodations and/or modifications that are simply convenient to a handicapped individual’s use or enjoyment of the property.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of the handicap of a person who will reside there.

Larkin v. Michigan Department of Social Services · filed 1996-07-16(f)(1)

It is well-settled that the FHAA applies to the regulation of group homes. ... Moreover, Congress explicitly intended for the FHAA to apply to zoning ordinances and other laws which would restrict the placement of group homes. ... Here, the challenged portions of MAFCLA are facially discriminatory. ... By their very terms, these statutes apply only to AFC facilities which will house the disabled, and not to other living arrangements. ... Accordingly, this is a case of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment, rather than disparate impact. ... Therefore, the 1500-foot spacing requirement violates the FHAA and is preempted by it. ... We find that the notice requirements violate the FHAA and are preempted by it.

Section 3604 requires a handicap-based housing accommodation request to be both reasonable and necessary.

Nason v. Stone Hill Realty Ass'n · filed 1996-05-06(f)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B)

In order to succeed in her claim of discrimination under G.L.c. 151B, §4(6)(b) or 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(2)(A), Nason must demonstrate that her request for accommodation in Stone Hill’s rules, policies and practices is both reasonable and necessary. G.L.c. 15 IB, §4(7A)(2); 42 U.S.C. §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 disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, but does not require accommodating a financial condition unrelated to the disability.

Schanz v. Village Apartments · filed 1998-03-16(f)(3)(B)

In the instant case, this direct correlation between plaintiffs handicap and the requested accommodation is missing. Put simply, in the case at bar, plaintiff has no need for the Village to accept the Guarantor Agreement to accommodate his handicap because his handicap is not preventing him from obtaining an apartment at The Village. Instead, it is plaintiffs financial situation which impedes him from renting an apartment at The Village, and it is plaintiffs financial situation which he is requesting that defendants accommodate. The FHAA does not require that this be done.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a plaintiff seeking a reasonable accommodation to show that the accommodation may be necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including a causal link between the challenged policy and denial of that opportunity.

United States v. California Mobile Home Park Management Company · filed 1997-02-27(f)(3)(B)

In other words, Cohen-Strong failed to show that the assessment of the fees caused the denial of her use and enjoyment of her dwelling.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a causal link between a challenged policy and denial of a disabled person's equal opportunity before a reasonable-accommodation duty arises.

United States v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co. · filed 1997-02-27(f)(3)(B)

Without a causal link between defendants’ policy and plaintiffs injury, there can be no obligation on the part of defendants to make a reasonable accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, privileges, or services of a dwelling, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Hubbard v. Samson Management Corp. · filed 1998-02-05(f)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (the “Act”) makes unlawful discrimination on the basis of handicap, “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A); ... Discrimination prohibited by the Act includes the refusal to make “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the handicapped individual] an equal opportunity io use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); ... This determination does not mean that Samson was required to designate a particular space for Hubbard’s sole use. The Act only requires that Hubbard, as a practical matter, be able to park sufficiently near her apartment so as to equalize her opportunity to use and enjoy her dwelling. ... Defendants’ proposal to designate a fee paid space for Hubbard also did not constitute a reasonable accommodation. Thus, the defendants violated Hubbard’s rights under the Act at least until they offered to create three handicapped parking spaces throughout Sleepy Hollow.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing plaintiff seeking a reasonable accommodation to show that the accommodation is reasonable and necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan. · filed 1999-06-23(f)(3)(B)

The reasonable accommodation provision of the FHA requires plaintiff to show that the proposed accommodations would be reasonable and “necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3).

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, including the particular dwelling requested; an accommodation is unreasonable if it imposes an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alters the program.

Connecticut Hospital v. City of New London · filed 2001-01-26(f)(3)(B)

Plaintiffs’ final argument is that defendants have violated the FHA by failing to make a reasonable accommodation for plaintiffs’ handicap as required by section 3604(f)(3)(B). This provision states that 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 legislative history accompanying this section requires a defendant to take affirmative steps to change its rules or practices if necessary to allow a handicapped person to use or enjoy a dwelling. ... This mandate has been interpreted by courts to mean that reasonable accommodations must be made to allow a handicapped individual to use a particular dwelling, “not just some dwelling somewhere in town.” ... This analysis is very fact specific and requires a case by case determination. ... To show that plaintiffs’ requested accommodation is unreasonable, defendants must prove that the request either imposes “undue financial and administrative burdens on the defendant, or requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) defines discrimination to include refusing a reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Frazier v. City of Grand Ledge, MI · filed 2001-03-19(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

Failure to make a reasonable accommodation when such an accommodation “may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling” is discrimination under the FHAA. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... The practical problem with this argument is that Plaintiffs, prior to this lawsuit, have never requested a reasonable accommodation from Defendant. ... Even if Plaintiffs had hinted to Defendant that they were seeking an “accommodation” under the FHAA, nothing indicates that granting Plaintiffs’ request for a special use permit “may be necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable and necessary accommodation that gives persons with handicaps an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

Tsombanidis v. City of West Haven · filed 2001-12-28(f)(3)(B)

Thus, the FHAA “requires an accommodation for persons with handicaps if the accommodation is (1) reasonable and (2) necessary (3) to afford handicapped persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.”

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

Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities, Inc. v. Woodlands Estates Ass'n · filed 2002-01-31(f)(3)

The FHAA requires accommodations for disabled persons, if the accommodations are reasonable and necessary, to afford disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3). An entity must reasonably accommodate a qualified individual with a disability by making changes in rules, policies, practices, or services, when necessary. ... In the instant case, the Court finds that Defendant did not reasonably accommodate Plaintiffs, in violation of the FHAA, when it failed to waive the enforcement of its deed restrictions contained in the Declarations. ... The Court finds that Defendant is in violation of the Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f) and Defendant is enjoined from attempting to enforce the deed restriction in question from operating.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable and necessary changes to housing rules when needed to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Incorporated v. City Of Milwaukee · filed 2002-08-08(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA 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. ... An accommodation is reasonable if it is both efficacious and proportional to the costs to implement it. ... A zoning waiver is unreasonable if it is so "at odds with the purposes behind the rule that it would be a fundamental and unreasonable change." ... And the right to appeal to BOZA for a variance is not in and of itself an accommodation. ... A variance was absolutely essential for the plaintiffs to have the equal opportunity to live in a residential community.

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

Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. · filed 2004-05-13(f)(3)(B)

In any event, as we have seen, the statute requires accommodation with respect not only to “rules” but also to a landlord’s “policies, practices, or services.” This language is broad enough, as we have explained at length, to require a landlord, in seeking to enforce a covenant to maintain the premises in a clean and sanitary condition, to grant a brief stay of eviction of a mentally ill tenant in order to allow her apartment to be cleaned and thus save her housing.

Under § 3604(f)(3)(B), a municipality must make reasonable accommodations to zoning rules only to redress a disability-related disparate impact; the accommodation requirement is not free-standing when the rules affect disabled and non-disabled persons alike.

WI Community Service v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2005-06-29(f)(3)(B)

As we explained in Hemisphere Building, the FHAA’s accommodation requirement is not free standing. See also Brandt v. Chebanse, 82 F.3d 172 (7th Cir. 1996). Accommodation in the FHAA’s parlance is the means by which disparate impact is alleviated. If a zoning or building-code rule bears more heavily on disabled than on other persons, the city must change the rules to the extent necessary to redress the adverse effect. In the absence of disparate impact, however, there is no need for accommodation under the FHAA.

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

Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp. · filed 2005-10-13(f)(3)(B)

The violation lies in the landlord's unjustified refusal to grant a handicapped tenant's request for a reasonable accommodation that is necessary to afford the tenant equal opportunity to use or enjoy the leased dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable and necessary accommodation when needed to give disabled people an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Harding v. City of Toledo · filed 2006-06-06(f)(3)(B)

The FHAA requires accommodation if such accommodation is 1) reasonable, and 2) necessary 3) to give disabled people equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

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

Groteboer v. Eyota Economic Development Authority · filed 2010-07-15(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.”

Section 3604(f) requires a reasonable-accommodation claimant to show causation and that the requested accommodation is possible or seems reasonable on its face before the burden shifts to the housing provider to prove that the accommodation is unreasonable.

Ramos v. Newman · filed 2011-03-01(f)

Under our precedent in Giebler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ramoses bear the burden of establishing causation between the requested accommodation, the trampoline in this case, and treatment of K.R.’s autism. Id. at 1155–56. The Ramoses then must demonstrate that installation of the trampoline is “possible” or “seems reasonable on its face.” Id. at 1156. Only after the Ramoses make these showings does the burden shift to Neumann to prove that the accommodation is not reasonable. Id. at 1157–58.

A reasonable-accommodation claim does not require proof of discriminatory animus, and the claim proceeds to trial when genuine issues of material fact remain.

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES OF NEB. v. City of Lincoln · filed 2007-01-25(f)(3)(B)

A reasonable accommodation claim, on the other hand, does not require proof of discriminatory animus, and a “modified burden-shifting analysis” is applied. ... Thus, the reasonable accommodation claim will be the subject of a bench trial.

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

Budnick v. Town of Carefree · filed 2008-03-10(f)(3)(B)

A municipality commits discrimination under the FHAA if it refuses “to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the physically disabled] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”

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

Fishing Rock Owners' Ass'n v. Roberts · filed 2014-03-18(f)(3)(B)

To establish a failure to provide a “reasonable accommodation” claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), “a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he suffers from a handicap as defined by the FHAA; (2) defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the plaintiffs handicap; (3) accommodation of the handicap ‘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) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

DeCastro v. Wambua · filed 2013-06-07(f)(3)(B)

Petitioner alleges a potentially meritorious claim against HPD under the FHAA, which requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services necessary to afford a person suffering from disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. (42 USC § 3604 [f] [3] [B].)

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations for a person with a disability when necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Gonzalez v. Recht Family Partnership · filed 2014-12-30(f)(3)(B)

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

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires housing providers to make 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.

Chavez v. Aber · filed 2015-08-08(f)(3)(B)

In light of the above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately pleaded the elements of a claim for housing discrimination under the FHA because Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants knew of M.C.’s disability, that Plaintiffs’ requested accommodation was reasonable, and that Defendants refused to make the requested accommodation. Therefore, Plaintiffs have asserted a sufficiently plausible claim for housing discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) to survive Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a necessary reasonable accommodation in housing rules, policies, practices, or services as discrimination, and a claimant must show a disability, the defendant's knowledge, necessity for equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling, and refusal to accommodate.

Handy v. City of New Rochelle · filed 2016-07-28(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, discrimination includes “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). “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 FHA; (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) requires a tenant claiming disability discrimination to prove that the housing provider refused a necessary accommodation that is reasonable on its face.

Silver Gardens II v. Montoya · filed 2018-09-11(f)(3)

Finally, to the extent Defendant sought to avoid eviction based on a claim that Plaintiff’s refusal to continue to forego eviction constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate his disability and, thus, unlawful discrimination in violation of the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619 (2012), Defendant bore the burden of proving that claim. See Dubois v. Ass’n. of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (identifying the elements of a failure-to-reasonably-accommodate claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3) that a tenant “must prove”). Specifically, Defendant had to prove that Plaintiff refused to make an accommodation that was both “necessary and seems reasonable on its face.” Kuhn ex rel. Kuhn v. McNary Estates Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1142, 1147 (D. Or. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant develops no argument nor cites any authority to support his apparent contention that Plaintiff’s refusal to further and indefinitely forestall eviction to allow Defendant to “obtain support services” and “stabilize [his] medications” was a failure to reasonably accommodate his disability and, thus, constituted unlawful discrimination in violation of the FHAA. Thus, we cannot say that the lower courts erred by rejecting Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff violated the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires only reasonable accommodations for a person with a disability, and determining reasonableness permits consideration of the accommodation’s cost and benefit.

Michael E. Taccino, Sr. v. Forest City Residential Management, LLC · filed 2019-06-07(f)(3)(B)

“However, in Kenna Homes, we further found that “[t]he requirement of reasonable accommodation does not entail an obligation to do everything humanly possible to accommodate a disabled person; cost (to the defendant) and benefit (to the plaintiff) merit consideration as well.” Id. at 387, 557 S.E.2d at 794 (Internal quotations and citations omitted.). While the cost to respondents would involve upsetting the settled expectations of the other tenants, the property manager’s testimony failed to show that a change in policy would benefit petitioner.

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

Lundregan v. Housing Opportunities Commission · filed 2020-05-07(f)(3)(B)

Though Plaintiff's housing voucher was eventually reinstated, the Fourth Circuit has said that, under the FHA, “a Violation occurs when the disabled resident is first denied a reasonable accommodation, irrespective of the remedies granted in subsequent proceedings.” Bryant Woods inn, Inc. v. Howard Cty., Md., 124 F.3d 597, 602 (4th Cir. 1 997). ... In view of these holdings, the Court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f}(3)(B) (The Court emphasizes that Plaintiff is still obliged to prove her claim).!

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested housing accommodation to be reasonable and necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, with a causal link between the disability and the challenged action.

Rosa v. Lawrence Housing Authority · filed 2021-07-20(f)(3)(B)

To satisfy the remaining third prong of a reasonable accommodation claims, Rosa must show that her request was “reasonable” and “necessary to afford person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). “[A] reasonable accommodation is required where there is a causal link between the disability for which the accommodation is requested and the misconduct that is the subject of the eviction or other challenged action.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable and necessary accommodation that gives a disabled tenant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Beverly v. Gateshudson · filed 2021-05-06(f)(3)(B)

In sum, Defendants’ obligation to provide Ms. Beverly an accessible parking spot and a living arrangement free of pet waste was reasonable and necessary to afford her an equal opportunity to use and enjoy her housing.

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

Payne v. City of San Antonio, Texas · filed 2021-08-26(f)(3)(B)

“Reasonable accommodation claims under the FHA and ADA both require that a reasonable accommodation be provided to the plaintiffs if necessary to allow the plaintiffs to have usage and enjoyment in a facility equivalent to individuals who are not disabled.”

Section 3604 requires a plaintiff alleging failure to reasonably accommodate a disability in housing to plead disability (or association), a reasonable-accommodation request, necessity for use and enjoyment of the dwelling, and refusal.

McCoy v. Cypress Landing LP · filed 2022-02-15

To state a failure to reasonably ... accommodate claim under § 3604, a plaintiff must plead four elements: “(1) the plaintiff is a person with a disability within the meaning of the FHA or a person associated with that individual; (2) the plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation for the disability; (3) the requested accommodation was necessary to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) the defendant refused to make the accommodation.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; providing overnight aides with a separate bedroom can be a reasonable accommodation.

Wren v. Cherryvale, Kansas, City of · filed 2022-08-25(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, discrimination is a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation in a rule, policy, or practice 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). ... Here, even if Plaintiff’s nighttime aides are not live-in aides under the regulation as argued by Defendants, it is likely a reasonable accommodation to provide those aides with a bedroom because they are required to stay overnight with Plaintiff to provide her care and also expected to be able to sleep when Plaintiff is not in need of assistance. This accommodation is reasonable because otherwise Plaintiff would be required to sacrifice her living room space to provide a sleeping area for her nighttime aides and, potentially, the loss of a bedroom could result in at least one aide being unable to provide services to Plaintiff.

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

ALLENTOWN VICTORY CHURCH v. CITY OF ALLENTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2022-09-01(f)(3)(B)

Discrimination under the FHA also 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). ... “An applicant must produce evidence showing why the number of units requested is necessary.” Yates, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 919 (citation omitted). AVC has not met that standard, so summary judgment must be granted.

Section 3604(f)(2) bars disability discrimination in housing-related services or facilities and requires reasonable accommodations when necessary to give disabled residents an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their property.

Whiteaker v. Kuspa · filed 2023-01-19(f)(2)

The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq., makes it illegal to discriminate against any person in the provision of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling because of a handicap. Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 360 (6th Cir. 2015 quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... The FHA “creates an affirmative duty on [a] municipalit[y] … to afford its disabled citizens reasonable accommodations in its municipal zoning practices if necessary to afford such persons equal opportunity in the use and enjoyment of their property.” Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 360 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Howard v. City of Beavercreek, 276 F.3d 802, 806 (6th Cir. 2002)). ... As an initial matter, an FHA reasonable accommodation plaintiff must establish that he: (1) suffers from a disability within the meaning of the FHA, (2) he requested an accommodation or modification, (3) the defendant housing provider refused to make the accommodation, and (4) the defendant knew or should have known about the disability at the time of the refusal. Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass’n, 760 F.3d 531(6th Cir. 2014). ... From there, to establish a reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff is required to show the proposed accommodation is both reasonable and necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity for enjoyment of the housing of his choice. Hollis, 760 F.3d at 540 (citing Smith & Lee Assocs., Inc v. City of Taylor, Mich., 102 F.3d 781, 794 (6th Cir. 1996)).

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

Wolf v. City of Millbrae · filed 2023-02-21(f)(3)(B)

We affirm the district court’s conclusion that Wolf failed to plead a fair housing violation because he failed to allege that the requested accommodation “may be necessary to afford [Wolf] equal opportunity to use and enjoy [his] dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); see United States v. Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997).

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

SAINT PIERRE v. NFG HOUSING PARTNERS LP · filed 2023-09-29(f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), bars discriminatory housing practices based on an individual’s disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). More specifically, as it relates to this case, the FHAA prohibits disability discrimination in connection with the “rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling” and further 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) & (3)(B). “To prevail on such a reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff must show a qualifying handicap, the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of that handicap, 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 the defendant’s refusal to make the requested accommodation.”

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

Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma, Inc v. Feiock · filed 2024-04-08(f)(3)(B)

“Under the FHA at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B),4 the required elements of a failure-to-accommodate claim “are: (1) plaintiff is handicapped within the meaning of the FHA; (2) defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the plaintiff's claimed disability; (3) plaintiff requested an accommodation of his disability that was necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) the requested accommodation was reasonable; and (5) defendants refused to make the requested accommodation.” ... “Accommodations required under the Act must be both reasonable and necessary to afford the handicapped individual an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” ... Thus, the McNamees requested an accommodation that was not an equal housing opportunity, but a better one. ... There is thus no evidence that a one-year lease renewal was a reasonable accommodation in this case. ... Because the requested accommodation was neither necessary nor reasonable, the Court finds that Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Docket No. 27] is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claim for failure to accommodate under the FHA and Oklahoma Fair Housing Law are therefore dismissed.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) makes it unlawful to refuse a reasonable accommodation when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Matter of McArthur v. Town of Brookhaven Dept. of Hous. & Human Servs. · filed 2024-11-06(f)(3)(B)

A failure to provide a reasonable accommodation to a person with a disability is unlawful discrimination under the FHA ( see 42 USC § 3604[f][3][B]), the ADA ( see id. § 12182[b][2][A][ii]), and the RA ( see 29 USC § 794[a], [d]). ... Substantial evidence further supported the Town's determination that the petitioner was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability because the record does not establish that a reasonable accommodation would be necessary to afford the petitioner an equal opportunity to use her Section 8 benefits ( see Sinisgallo v Town of Islip Hous. Auth. , 865 F Supp 2d at 339-340).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable-accommodation plaintiff to show a refusal, a reasonable accommodation, and necessity/equal opportunity.

TWYMAN v. RECAP PA HOLDINGS, LLC · filed 2025-04-28(f)(3)(B)

To make out a reasonable accommodation claim, Ms. Twyman must “plead enough facts to make out the three elements set forth in [section] 3604(f)(3)(B): refusal, reasonable accommodation, and necessity/equal opportunity.”

Section 3604(f)(1) requires a reasonable-accommodation claim to allege disability, a requested accommodation necessary to use and enjoy a dwelling, and refusal of that accommodation.

Gonzalez v. Royse Services LLC · filed 2025-07-11(f)(1)

A failure-to-accommodate claim under Section 3604(f)(1) requires factual allegations demonstrating that the plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the FHA, that the plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation necessary to the use and enjoyment of the dwelling, and that the defendants refused the accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing accommodation to be reasonable and necessary to give a disabled resident an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; a trained service dog can plausibly meet that standard where it helps prevent serious harm and allowing pets suggests no undue burden.

O'Connor · filed 2026-01-13(f)(3)(B)

In the Tenth Circuit, “[t]o establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the FHAA, [the plaintiff] must show that its requested accommodation was reasonable and necessary to afford its disabled residents the ‘equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’” ... As the Tenth Circuit has explained, “the statute requires accommodations that are necessary (or indispensable or essential) to achieving the objective of equal housing opportunities between those with disabilities and those without.” ... Here, the complaint alleges that guests and some other employees were allowed to bring pets on the premises. This allows a plausible inference that Plaintiff’s request to bring a trained service dog onto the premises would be a reasonable accommodation unlikely to cause any fundamental alteration or undue burden.

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

Canales · filed 2026-02-10(f)

The FHA “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.’ ”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) makes it unlawful for a housing provider to refuse a reasonable disability accommodation necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

DeMoor · filed 2026-03-03(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful for a housing provider to refuse to make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services, when the accommodation is necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; without evidence establishing necessity, the accommodation claim fails.

Friedman v. Central Maine Power Company · filed 2026-04-29(f)(3)(B)

Thus, we address Friedman's reasonable accommodation claims primarily under the ADA, although our analysis applies with equal force to his corresponding FHA and Rehabilitation Act claims. ... Without the treating physicians' testimony, the record lacks evidence of specific causation to demonstrate that Friedman's accommodation request is necessary, as required under the federal antidiscrimination statutes. His reasonable accommodation claims thus fail as a matter of law, and the district court was correct to grant summary judgment to CMP on these claims.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing accommodation to be reasonable and necessary to give disabled individuals an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Glaser · filed 2026-06-05(f)(3)(B)

To bring a claim for a failure-to-accommodate under the FHA, a plaintiff “must show that [his] requested accommodation was reasonable and necessary to afford . . . disabled residents the ‘equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’” Courage to Change Ranches Holding Co. v. El Paso Cnty., Colo., 73 F.4th 1175, 1204 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). ... The Court agrees with the City that plaintiff’s requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the affordable homeownership program. As a result, plaintiff’s requested accommodation is not reasonable.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require an accommodation that fundamentally alters a housing assistance program or imposes an undue administrative burden.

Huberty v. Washington County Housing & Redevelopment Authority · filed 2005-06-28(f)(3)(B)

In the FHAA context, a requested accommodation is unreasonable when it fundamentally alters the nature of the program or imposes undue financial or administrative burdens. ... Therefore, plaintiffs requested accommodation was unreasonable, and HRA was under no obligation to grant it.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) permits a reasonable accommodation claim against a homeowners association when the resident sufficiently pleads that the association had authority to make the requested accommodation.

Hunt v. Aliso Viejo Community Assn. CA4/3 · filed 2026-06-02(f)(3)(B)

Our holding is simply that Hunt has sufficiently pleaded AVCA’s authority to act to avoid a demurrer on her first cause of action for violation of the FHA and her second cause of action for violation of FEHA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a requested accommodation to alleviate the effects of a disability and address needs created by it.

Vision Warriors Church, Inc. v. Johnston · filed 2024-01-11(f)(3)(B)

To establish the necessity of an accommodation, a Plaintiff must demonstrate that the accommodation “(1) actually allevi- ate[s] the effects of the plaintiff’s disability and (2) address[es] the needs created by the plaintiff’s disability.” ... On this record, however, we cannot say that Appellant has demonstrated that the extra numbers will “alleviate the effects” of its disability.

Section 3604(f)(3) requires reasonable accommodations to generally applicable housing rules; it does not provide a reasonable-accommodation claim against a rule directed specifically at group homes for the handicapped.

Bangerter v. Orem City Corporation, a Utah Municipal Corporation · filed 1995-01-11(f)(3)

Here, Bangerter does not challenge an ordinance that is generally applicable, since it is specifically directed at group homes for the handicapped. Under these facts, we conclude that the claim for “reasonable accommodation” is simply inappropriate and the district court correctly dismissed that claim.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) can require a housing provider to change its parking allocation policy when nearby parking is necessary for a disabled resident to use and enjoy her dwelling.

Phyllis Shapiro and United States of America v. Cadman Towers, Inc. And Sydelle Levy · filed 1995-03-21(f)(3)(B)

Pursuant to section 3604(f)(3)(B), Cadman Towers is required to make reasonable accommodations in its rules and practices so as to enable Shapiro to “use and enjoy [her] dwelling.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires an accommodation that helps a disabled tenant function and is reasonable after weighing the tenant’s benefit against the landlord’s cost.

Alisha Bronk and Monica Jay v. Ineichen · filed 1995-05-11(f)(3)(B)

The accommodation must facilitate a disabled individual’s ability to function, and it must survive a cost-benefit balancing that takes both parties’ needs into account.

Section 3604(f)(2) allows a tenant to plead disability discrimination in rental terms by alleging that a landlord refused a needed accommodation to its eviction procedures.

Anast v. Commonwealth Apartments · filed 1997-01-16(f)(2)

Plaintiff contends that postponing the eviction hearing would have constituted a reasonable accommodation in Commonwealth’s rules, policies, or practices which was necessary to afford her an equal opportunity to use and enjoy her apartment. (Compl. at ¶ 71.) The court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently pled that defendants have discriminated against her in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling because of her handicap.

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

In Re Kenna Homes Cooperative Corp. · filed 2001-12-10(f)(3)(B)

According to subsection (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[.]”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable accommodation when necessary to give disabled people an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing; the chance to seek a zoning variance alone does not satisfy that duty.

Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2002-08-08(f)(3)(B)

And the right to appeal to BOZA for a variance is not in and of itself an accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require an accommodation sought for a property owner’s economic benefit without evidence that disabled residents need it.

Smita Sanghvi Tarun Sanghvi v. City of Claremont, and Suzan Smith Paul Heid Algrid Leiga Diann Ring Karen Rosenthal Glen · filed 2003-05-05(f)(3)(B)

The Sanghvis presented no evidence from which the jury could conclude that the requested accommodation was an accommodation required by the Alzheimer’s patients. It was an accommodation sought by the Sanghvis for their personal benefit. They wanted a sewer hook-up without annexation because they did not want to incur the added cost of complying with the City’s building requirements. This was an economic concern of the Sanghvis, not a therapeutic concern of the Alzheimer’s patients.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodation of zoning rules when necessary to give residents with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Dr. Gertrude A. Barber Center, Inc. v. Peters Township · filed 2003-07-02(f)(3)(B)

The Barber Center has established that defendants have failed to reasonably accommodate its desire to provide housing to persons with disabilities in a single-family neighborhood in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); they have made housing unavailable to persons with disabilities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3605(f)(1); and they maintain a zoning ordinance that permits discrimination against those with disabilities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3615.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a person seeking an accommodation from a neutral housing rule to request an exception through the government’s established procedures before bringing a failure-to-accommodate claim.

Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Department · filed 2003-12-15(f)(3)(B)

But a plaintiff must first use the procedures available to notify the governmental entity that it seeks an exception or variance from the facially neutral laws when pursuing a reasonable accommodation claim.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a zoning accommodation when a rule disproportionately burdens disabled people, but not when it imposes the same cost on everyone.

Wisconsin Community Services, Inc., and Wisconsin Correctional Service Foundation, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin · filed 2005-06-29(f)(3)(B)

If a zoning or building-code rule bears more heavily on disabled than on other persons, the city must change the rules to the extent necessary to redress the adverse effect. In the absence of disparate impact, however, there is no need for accommodation under the FHAA. A requirement that imposes equal cost on all persons does not have such a disparate impact.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires landlords to reasonably accommodate a disabled tenant’s needs, including through rental policies.

Taylor v. Harbaugh · filed 2021-02-16(f)(3)(B)

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the requested accommodation was unreasonable and have not put forth any evidence that they satisfied their affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff.

Section 3604(f) can require a landlord to allow a disabled tenant to remain in an apartment under a treatment program after disability-related conditions have been remedied.

RCG-UA Glenwood, LLC v. Young · filed 2005-07-21(f)

While the FHAA does not require a landlord to abide conduct constituting a nuisance, it does, in the circumstances presented, require that tenant be accommodated to the extent of being afforded an opportunity to continue to reside in the apartment pursuant to the aforementioned treatment program (42 USC § 3604 [f]; see Blalock v Amityville Senior Dev. Corp., NYLJ, Nov. 12, 1999, at 36, col 3 [ED NY]; Roe v Housing Auth. of City of Boulder, 909 F Supp 814 [D Colo 1995]; Roe v Sugar River Mills Assoc., 820 F Supp 636 [D NH 1993]).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) allows a reasonable accommodation claim when a housing provider fails to provide an accommodation needed for equal housing opportunity.

Trimuel v. Chicago Housing Authority · filed 2023-09-27(f)(3)(B)

Plaintiff has adequately pled that she suffered disabilities, requested a reasonable accommodation, and CHA denied that request (after approving it). Thus, she has stated a claim against CHA for refusing her reasonable accommodation request.

Section 3604 prohibits disability-based exclusion from housing and requires reasonable accommodations necessary to provide equal housing opportunity, including in municipal zoning decisions.

Hamm v. City of Gahanna · filed 2004-08-31

These provisions apply to “municipal zoning ordinances that affect housing opportunities for the disabled” and “discriminatory actions taken by municipalities pursuant to zoning ordinances.”

Section 3604 supports preliminary relief against a zoning ordinance that facially restricts foster homes with children because of familial status.

Diamond House of SE Idaho, LLC v. City of Ammon · filed 2019-04-05(a), (c)

The Court concludes the classification drawn by Ordinance 598 and the burdens it places on certain Ammon residents renders it discriminatory on its face. ... Plaintiffs have established Ordinance 598 is facially discriminatory under the FHA.

Section 3604(a) covers race-based discrimination in public housing siting that affects where housing is available.

Jackson v. Okaloosa County · filed 1994-06-08(a)

The complaint in this case adequately states a cause of action under Sec. 3604(a), since this suit alleges race-based discrimination affecting the "availability" of public housing within the Authority's territory.

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, while § 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in rental terms, conditions, or privileges because of a protected characteristic.

North Dakota Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. Allen · filed 2004-05-27(f)(3)(B) and (b)

The Court has carefully reviewed the record and finds that there are clearly genuine issues of material fact in dispute which preclude summary judgment on this claim.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling based on handicap or national origin, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal of a necessary reasonable accommodation as handicap discrimination.

Wells v. Willow Lake Estates, Inc. · filed 2010-08-05(b), (f)(3)(B)

The FHA provides that it is 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” based on that person’s national origin or handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f)(2). Discrimination on the basis of a handicap 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). ... In addition, Wells alleges that Willow Lakes denied her request for reasonable accommodation in complying with those regulations. That act of alleged discrimination is also an injury in fact. ... If those allegations are true, the defendants have discriminated against Wells on the basis of disability and against Sim on the basis of national origin. ... Wells and Sim therefore each have standing; Wells has stated a valid claim for disability discrimination under the FHA, and Sim has stated a valid claim for national origin discrimination under the FHA.

Section 3604(b) protects tenants from discrimination in rental terms and conditions based on race, color, or national origin, including discriminatory lease requirements and harassment aimed at displacing tenants.

Tejada v. Littlecity Realty LLC · filed 2018-04-10(b)

The Fair Housing Act ("Act") protects tenants from discrimination in the "terms, conditions, or privileges" of a rental or dwelling based on "race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." ... These acts include requiring perceived Latino tenants to sign a lease addendum disclosing their national origin, filing frivolous lawsuits against them, and engaging in discriminatory threatening and harassing behavior towards them. ... Plaintiffs sufficiently allege defendants continuously engaged in a pattern of discriminatory behavior in an effort to displace the rentstabilized Latino tenants.

Section 3604(b) requires a challenge to rental terms to allege intentional discrimination or a discriminatory effect on a protected class; an allegedly unreasonable late fee alone does not suffice.

LIVINGSTONE v. HADDON POINT MANAGER, LLC · filed 2020-02-25(b)

However, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest that Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race, nor that Defendants’ actions had a discriminatory effect on African-Americans.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C) requires accessibility in all ground-floor units of qualifying non-elevator multifamily buildings, without an exception based on the community’s perceived need for accessibility features.

United States v. Quality Built Construction · filed 2005-01-05(f)(3)(C)

However, in the accessibility provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C), Congress required that all ground floor units in non-elevator buildings comprised of four or more units and designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 must be made accessible under the Act. Defendants’ two complexes fall within the reach of this provision. There are no exclusions to this coverage based on any perceived need, or lack thereof, for the required accessibility features in a particular community or development. Under the Act, all ground floor units must be accessible.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing a reasonable disability-related accommodation needed to provide equal use and enjoyment of a dwelling, but does not require landlords and tenants to engage in an interactive process to develop the accommodation.

Andover Housing Authority v. Shkolnik · filed 2005-01-14(f)(3)(B)

Discrimination prohibited by the Fair Housing Act includes the “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.” ... Unlike the employment context, however, there is no language in the Fair Housing Act, or the relevant sections of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. §§ 100.200-100.205 (2004), that imposes an obligation on landlords and tenants to engage in an interactive process for reaching appropriate reasonable accommodations.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a necessary reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services as disability discrimination, and a plaintiff must request the accommodation and show that it was refused.

Steven Kelley Richardson, Michelle Richardson and Richard Day v. SV Almeda I Limited Partnership · filed 2013-08-29(f)(3)(B)

Thus, under both statutes, to prevail on a cause of action for violation of the “reasonable accommodation” provision, the plaintiff must show that he requested a reasonable accommodation and the defendant refused to make it. ... In light of the conclusive proof that there was no request for an accommodation and the complete absence of evidence that the apartment complex refused to make a requested reasonable accommodation, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on Day’s state and federal fair housing causes of action.

Section 3604 requires a housing provider to make a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability when the accommodation is necessary to give that person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.

Cooper v. PJ Apartments, LLC, dba Village Square Apartments · filed 2020-07-15(f)(3)(B)

A failure to make reasonable accommodations for a disabled individual is one form of a violation of the FHA. ... To make out a claim for failure to make reasonable accommodations, a plaintiff is required to show that: ... she suffers from a disability, that she requested an accommodation or modification, that the defendant housing provider refused to make the accommodation or to permit the modification, and that the defendant knew or should have known of the disability at the time of the refusal. ... In addition to proving the above, the plaintiff is also required to prove that the proposed accommodation is both reasonable and necessary. ... As to Plaintiff’s continuing obligation argument, it is clear that a housing provider is obligated to respond to a reasonable accommodation request once it is made, and the failure to “reach an agreement on an accommodation request is in effect a decision by the provider not to grant the requested accommodation.” ... A housing provider satisfies their obligation under the FHA by offering a unit that reasonably accommodates a claimant’s disability.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing-discrimination claimant to show that a requested accommodation is necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and the claimant bears the burden of proof.

Guste Homes Resident Management Corporation v. Thomas · filed 2020-07-29(f)(3)(B)

We next address Thomas’ first assignment of error: his accommodation request as an affirmative defense. Thomas argues on appeal that, because he made a prima facie case that he was entitled to reasonable accommodation for his disability, the city court erred in granting the eviction. We disagree, as we find that Thomas did not meet his burden to show, on the evidence at trial, that the requested accommodation was “necessary” as required under the FHA. ... The party claiming failure to accommodate under the FHA also bears the burden of showing that the requested accommodation is necessary. ... Even so, we find that Thomas failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of the third factor: whether the requested accommodation was “necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... As we find Thomas has not met his burden on the necessity factor, he has not satisfied the requirements for a reasonable accommodation claim, and we find it unnecessary to reach the remaining factors.

Section 3604(f) makes disability discrimination in housing unlawful, including refusing a reasonable accommodation when it may be necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling.

Johnson v. Guardian Management · filed 2021-04-26(f)(2)

The FHA makes it unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of service or facilities in connection with such dwelling because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) (as amended by Pub. L. No 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619 (1988)). Under the FHA, 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 enjoy the dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (f)(3)(B). The FHA states that the refusal of a reasonable disability accommodation is a form of discrimination.

Section 3604(f)(2) bars disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, and a reasonable-accommodation claim requires a reasonable and necessary accommodation providing equal housing opportunity.

Whittman v. Associa, Associations, Inc. · filed 2022-01-21(f)(2)

The FHA prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services of facilities with such dwelling, because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... Discrimination is defined within the statute to include the “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). ... As Plaintiff rightly cites, a reasonable accommodation claim under the FHA requires a three-step test whereby the complaint must plead an accommodation that is “(1) reasonable and (2) necessary (3) to afford handicapped persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.” ... Lastly, the “equal opportunity” prong “does not require accommodations that increase a benefit to a handicapped person above that provided to a nonhandicapped person with respect to matters unrelated to the handicap.”

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

Staton v. Vesta Corporation · filed 2022-07-11(f)(3)(B)

Plaintiff does appear to advance one potentially cognizable claim: that Defendant denied him an accessible apartment. See Compl. at 1; Pl.’s Opp’n at 1 (stating that Defendant did not “provid[e] plaintiff with the agreed upon apartment suitable for his disability”); City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 729 (1995) (“Discrimination covered by the [Fair Housing Act] includes ‘a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [handicapped] person[s] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’” (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). ... Here, Plaintiff has not pleaded any “factual content” to support a possible housing discrimination claim. He has not, for example, stated the nature of his disability, what accommodation he sought or when he sought it, or how his current apartment fails to accommodate his disability.

Section 3604(f) requires a failure-to-accommodate claim to allege a disability, the housing provider's knowledge of it, a requested reasonable and necessary accommodation allowing equal use and enjoyment of the housing, and refusal to provide that accommodation.

MCQUEEN v. SINGH · filed 2022-11-23(f)

Claims of discrimination based on a failure to accommodate, which might arise under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the FHAA, require allegations (1) that the plaintiff suffers from a handicap; (2) that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the handicap; (3) that a reasonable and necessary accommodation of the handicap was requested by the plaintiff to afford the plaintiff an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the housing in question; and (4) that the defendant refused to provide an accommodation.

Section 3604 requires making reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, but it does not itself require an interactive process.

Rice v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2023-06-13(f)(3)(B)

Also, “[t]he statute prohibits failing to ‘make reasonable accommodations,’ not failing to interactively engage.’”

Section 3604 prohibits disability discrimination in housing-related terms, services, or facilities and requires reasonable accommodations when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; an ASL interpreter is required only when the circumstances make it necessary.

Fair Housing Center for Metropolitan Detroit v. Singh Senior Living, LLC · filed 2023-11-28(f)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B)

The FHA also does not necessarily require a housing provider to have an ASL interpreter on staff, but to provide one if the circumstances require to ensure a deaf person has an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.

Section 3604(f)(3) covers reasonable accommodations for a person's disability when necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Chapman v. Davis · filed 2024-07-15(f)(3)

To state a claim based on Heels Homes’ and 4 Real Estate’s failure to make reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff's disability, Plaintiff must allege: (1) she suffers from a disability within the meaning of FHA; (2) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the disability; (3) the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) the defendant refused to make the accommodation. Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer, 415 F. App’x 617, 621 (6th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up); see also 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3). ... The request for Nemo’s vaccination records is not a refusal to allow Plaintiff to keep her ESA as a reasonable accommodation.

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.

PEDRO v. HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC. · filed 2025-01-16(f)(3)(B)

The FHA prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability in the rental or sale of a dwelling. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Disability discrimination in this context includes, inter alia, “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a] person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... The Complaint’s attempt to frame the Hilton’s apparent refusal to pay Pedro $60.00 so she could do her and Fisher’s laundry following the bed bug incident as a failure to accommodate Fisher’s disability also does not state a plausible FHA claim.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a housing provider to make a reasonable rule, policy, practice, or service accommodation when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and a claim requires proof of refusal.

Thorson v. Hawaii Public Housing Authority · filed 2025-06-06(f)(3)(B)

A Fair Housing Act discrimination claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3) requires a plaintiff to establish that (1) she is handicapped within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) the defendants knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap; (3) accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) the defendants refused to make the requested accommodation. ... The rent reasonableness test is not itself a reasonable accommodation; it is merely a mechanism used to ensure that landlords are paid a fair rent amount out of federal Section 8 funds, but no more than that.

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

JONES v. FEATHERSTONE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC · filed 2025-06-11(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a renter with disabilities 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. Philippeaux, 598 F. App'x at 643-44 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)).

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability discrimination in housing, including refusing a reasonable accommodation necessary to give a person with a handicap an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Son v. Oakmount Properties-Azure, LLC · filed 2025-08-05(f)

“To make out a claim of discrimination based on failure to reasonably accommodate, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he suffers from a handicap as defined by the FHAA; (2) defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the plaintiff's handicap; (3) accommodation of the handicap ‘may be necessary’ to afford plaintiff an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) defendants refused to make such accommodation.” ... The complaint therefore fails to state a claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). Count IV will be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires landlords to make 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.

Suggs · filed 2026-03-03(f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Act places various obligations on all landlords including that they “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). Plaintiff does not allege how defendants requiring him to “fix and modify the rental property” ([DE-7] at 4) discriminated against him because of his disability or violated the defendants’ responsibility to make reasonable accommodations in their policies to provide plaintiff with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in housing-sale or rental terms and in connected services, and its broad services language can cover home-improvement and refinancing loans.

Beard v. Worldwide Mortgage Corp. · filed 2005-02-03(b)

Courts have recognized that § 3604(b) of the United States Code prohibits “discrimination in the terms or conditions under which housing is sold or leased.” ... Thus, the language of § 3604(b) is broad enough to encompass home improvement loans and refinancing loans because the burden of the debt affects individuals ability to buy or sell a dwelling. ... In the instant case, Plaintiff refinanced the existing mortgage on her home. Moreover, Equity Title and Winkel are alleged to have provided services in connection with the refinancing of Plaintiffs existing mortgage. The Court finds, therefore, that Plaintiff has asserted a claim against Defendants for violation of § 3604(b). Accordingly, the Court denies Equity Title and Winkel’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).

Section 3604(b) does not cover a private home appraisal sought to refinance an existing mortgage because the appraisal is neither a covered service nor a privilege of sale.

Connolly v. Lanham · filed 2023-08-02(b)

Despite § 3604’s broad scope, this Court concludes that this specific subsection does not extend to the present situation, where Plaintiffs sought an appraisal of their home to refinance their mortgage.

Section 3604(b) covers discrimination involving the provision of services or facilities in connection with the rental of a dwelling; it does not apply when the claimant is merely a squatter with no rental or contemplated rental.

Smith v. Henry · filed 2023-11-03(b)

Here, the issue is whether the defendants interfered with “the provision of services or facilities in connection” with the “rental of a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). The plaintiff was not a tenant or prospective tenant, but a squatter. Thus, the defendants could not have violated § 3604(b): there was no “rental of a dwelling” or contemplation of one.

Section 3604(b) requires a challenged service to be connected with the sale or rental of a dwelling.

Firs Home Owners Association v. City of SeaTac · filed 2022-06-21(b)

Because plaintiff has failed to identify any service the City provided in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling, the claims under § 3604(b) fail.

Section 3604(b) does not cover a city's proposed housing funding allocation when the city is not involved in sale or rental terms or related services.

Housing Justice Campaign v. Koch · filed 1991-01-24(b)

In any event, plaintiffs’ claim, as pleaded, fails to state a cause of action under the Fair Housing Act because defendants are not involved "in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith” as plaintiffs, relying on 42 USC § 3604 (b), allege.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits handicap discrimination in renting a dwelling, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make necessary reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services as discrimination.

Blatch Ex Rel. Clay v. Hernandez · filed 2005-03-30(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

The FHAA prohibits, inter alia, discrimination on the basis of handicap in the rental of a dwelling to any renter, and defines “discrimination” to include “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.A. §§ 3604(f)(2), 3604(f)(3)(B) (West 2004).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in housing rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary for a person with a disability to enjoy the dwelling.

Lopez v. New York City Dept. Homeless Services · filed 2019-08-02(f)(3)(B)

Similar to the ADA, the Fair Housing Act provides a private right of action for victims of “discriminatory housing practice[s].” 42 U.S.C. § 3613 (a)(1)(A). This includes the “refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services” when those accommodations are necessary for a person’s enjoyment of the dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). As discussed above, Plaintiff alleged that DHS, not the WIN Defendants, ultimately rejected Plaintiff’s request to be transferred to a transgender-specific shelter. Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff’s FHA claims also be dismissed.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits disability discrimination in housing, including refusing reasonable accommodations necessary to give a person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Arthur v. District of Columbia Housing Authority · filed 2020-04-11(f)(1)

The FHA makes it unlawful “[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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). Such 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.” Id. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... The FHA requires a plaintiff to show: (1) she had a handicap within the meaning of the FHA; (2) defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the handicap; (3) an accommodation may be necessary to afford her an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) defendants refused to make the requested accommodation.

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

Hall v. Hilderbrand · filed 2020-03-23(f)(3)(B)

To plausibly allege the “necessity” of her accommodation, Plaintiff must show that “without [the] accommodation, [she] cannot take advantage of the opportunity (available to those without disabilities) to live in those housing facilities.” Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Ctr., Inc. v. St. George City, 685 F.3d 917, 923 (10th Cir. 2012). Here, Plaintiff does not allege any connection between her unspecified disability and her request to refrain from yard maintenance, from which the court could discern that the asked-for accommodation was “necessary,” as opposed to merely preferable.6 See Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Ass’n, 903 F.3d 100, 107-11 (3rd Cir. 2018) (“Necessity,” for purposes of § 3604(f)(3)(B), means “that an accommodation be essential, not just preferable.”); see also Cinnamon Hills, 685 F.3d at 923 (“[W]hile the FHA requires accommodations necessary to ensure the disabled receive the same housing opportunities as everybody else, it does not require more or better opportunities.”); Schwartz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201, 1218-19 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he duty to make a reasonable accommodation does not simply spring from the fact that the handicapped person wants such an accommodation made.”).

Section 3604 bars housing discrimination and requires reasonable accommodations for disabled tenants when necessary to give them an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their homes.

Rodney Green, Sr. v. Mercy Housing, Inc. · filed 2021-03-19

Accessible parking is necessary to afford mobility-impaired tenants equal opportunity to use and enjoy their homes.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of disability, and section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.

Mercer v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2022-05-16(f)(1)(A), (f)(3)(B)

The FHA makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the . . . rental [of], or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any . . . renter because of” the individual’s disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A). Under the FHA, disability 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). ... To state a claim under the FHA that a defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodations, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he had a disability, (2) the defendant knew of or should have known of the disability, (3) the requested accommodation “was likely necessary to afford the [disabled] person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling,” (4) the accommodation requested was reasonable, and (5) “the defendant refused to make the requested accommodation.” Olsen v. Stark Homes, Inc., 759 F.3d 140, 156 (2d Cir. 2014). ... Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts plausibly suggesting a viable FHA claim.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of disability, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal of necessary reasonable accommodations as disability discrimination.

Jones v. City of New York · filed 2022-10-17(f)(1)(A), (f)(3)(B)

The FHA makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the . . . rental [of], or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any . . . renter because of” the individual’s disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A). Under the FHA, disability 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).

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or imposing discriminatory terms because of disability, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations needed for equal use and enjoyment of a dwelling.

United States v. THE DORCHESTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION · filed 2023-01-25(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) makes it unlawful “to 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 (A) that buyer or renter, (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, renter, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). 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 Court will: ... 1. Sustain the jury’s verdict in favor of the Halperns as to liability; ... 3. Deny the DOA’s Rule 50(a) Motion as to the other violations found by the jury.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability discrimination in renting and housing-related services and requires reasonable accommodations when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Avila v. Acacia Network Inc. · filed 2023-02-22(f)(1)(A), (f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

Section 3604 makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the . . . rental [of], or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any . . . renter because of” the individual’s disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A). It also 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 a dwelling, because of a [disability].” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Under the FHA, disability discrimination further 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). ... Even assuming that the infection described in Martynowicz’s letter is a disability within the meaning of the FHA, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim, under the FHA, that Defendants have intentionally discriminated against him because of his disability or failed to provide reasonable accommodations with respect to his disability. ... Plaintiff also alleges no facts showing that he has been denied an equal opportunity to enjoy his apartment due to a requested reasonable accommodation for his disability that was denied.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability discrimination in the rental and terms, conditions, privileges, and services of a dwelling, including refusing reasonable accommodations necessary to afford a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy it.

Baltazar v. Goldfarb Properties · filed 2023-02-22(f)(1)(A), (f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

Section 3604 makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the . . . rental [of], or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any . . . renter because of” the individual’s disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A). It also 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 a dwelling, because of a [disability].” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Under the FHA, disability discrimination further 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). ... Even assuming that Plaintiff has a disability within the meaning of the FHA, which he has not fully explained, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim, under the FHA, that Defendants have intentionally discriminated against him because of his disability or failed to provide reasonable accommodations with respect to his disability. Plaintiff does not allege that: the requested accommodation was likely necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling; the accommodation he requested was reasonable; and the defendant refused to make the requested accommodation.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of disability; requires reasonable accommodations when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and prohibits disparate treatment in rental terms or services because of race or national origin.

Ngiendo v. University Partners, LLC. · filed 2023-04-04(f)(2), (f)(3)(B), (b)

The FHA makes it unlawful for housing providers to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling because of a handicap of that person. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). 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). A plaintiff establishes a claim for failure to accommodate a disability under the FHA if she shows the following elements: (1) the plaintiff is handicapped as defined by the FHA, (2) the defendant “knew or reasonably should have known of the claimed handicap,” (3) an accommodation of the handicap may be necessary “to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling,” (4) the accommodation is reasonable, and (5) the defendant refused to make the accommodation. ... To establish a claim for disparate treatment based on race or national origin under the FHA, Plaintiff must show the following: she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was denied a rental relationship or otherwise treated differently in the terms, conditions, or privileges of her rental relationship or in the provision of services or facilities to her as a tenant; and (3) the different treatment was, at least in part, because of her [protected class].

Section 3604(f)(2) bars disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, privileges, services, or facilities of housing, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make a necessary reasonable accommodation as discrimination.

Kandell v. SUR 702 · filed 2023-04-20(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

Section 3604 of the FHA prohibits discrimination in the rental of housing based on disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Under the statute it is 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 [disability] of that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A). Such discrimination includes “a 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); 24 C.F.R. § 100.204.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms or conditions of a dwelling rental, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations when necessary for equal use and enjoyment.

Brown v. American Homes 4 Rent · filed 2023-04-24(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

Section 3604 of the FHA prohibits discrimination in the rental of housing based on disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... To state a claim of FHA disability discrimination Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts demonstrating: (1) they are disabled “within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)”; (2) Defendants “knew or should reasonably be expected to know of” Plaintiff’s disability; (3) the requested accommodation “may be necessary to afford” Plaintiffs “an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling”; (4) the accommodation request was “reasonable”; and (5) Defendants “refused to make the requested accommodation.” Dubois v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

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

El-Bey v. Berkshire Hathaway Home Service · filed 2023-08-24(f)(3)(B)

The FHA makes it unlawful to “refus[e] 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 prevail on an FHA reasonable accommodation claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that she is handicapped; (2) that she requested an accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services and the defendant denied it; (3) that the requested accommodation is reasonable; and (4) that the requested accommodation is necessary to afford the plaintiff an equal opportunity (i.e., equal to a non-handicapped person) to use and enjoy the dwelling.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) bars disability discrimination in housing sales, rentals, and related services; § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable and necessary accommodations that provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and § 3604(c) bars statements indicating a disability-based preference, limitation, or discrimination.

Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit v. American House Grosse Pointe, LLC · filed 2023-11-28(f)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B), and (c)

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,” on the basis of that person’s handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A). ... Discrimination prohibited by the Act includes the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in “rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the handicapped individual an] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... In determining whether a statement is unlawful under § 3604(c), courts consider whether the statement indicates to an objective “ordinary listener” a preference, limitation, or discrimination based upon a protected class. ... At most, Sadler refused a requested accommodation; her statements themselves do not directly or indirectly suggest discrimination or a preference for nondisabled tenants. Under these facts, a reasonable jury could not find a violation of § 3604(c).

Section 3604(f) prohibits housing discrimination because of disability and requires reasonable accommodations to rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Players Place II Condominium Association, Inc. v. K.P. and B.F. · filed 2024-03-13(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful “[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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). Discriminatory housing practices include “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a person who is handicapped] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); see also 24 C.F.R. § 966.7(a) (applying the same principle to lease and grievance procedures).

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) bars disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental and related services, while § 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing reasonable accommodations; an accommodation claim requires disability, knowledge, a reasonable and necessary accommodation request, and refusal.

STEVENS-NUNEZ v. BRISTOL BOROUGH MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION · filed 2024-06-03(f)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B)

The FHAA makes it unlawful “[t]o 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.” ... Discrimination under the FHAA also includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services.” ... The essential elements of a claim for refusal to accommodate under the FHAA are: (1) that the plaintiff, a co-resident, or other associate is disabled within the meaning of § 3602(h); (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the disability; (3) that the plaintiff requested an accommodation that is both reasonable and necessary to afford the plaintiff an equal opportunity to use the dwelling in question; and (4) that the defendant refused to make the requested accommodation.

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

Reading Housing Auth. v. PHRC · filed 2025-12-11(f)(3)(B)

Specifically, Section 804(f)(3)(B) of the FHA makes it unlawful to “refus[e] 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). Thus, this section “requires that an accommodation be granted when it is reasonable and necessary to afford handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.”

Section 3604(f)(1) bars refusing to sell or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of disability, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules and policies when necessary for equal use and enjoyment.

Hirschmann v. Hassapoyannes · filed 2007-06-11(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Act prohibits the refusal to sell or to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of a handicap. ... Discrimination under the Fair Housing Act includes the failure or 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.” ... Hassapoyannes’ failure to come forward with information concerning his need for a reasonable accommodation at the interview, when the law protected him from being compelled to do so, does not constitute a valid basis for withdrawing approval of his purchase application. Accordingly, the Coop’s decision to withdraw its approval of Hassapoyannes’ application to purchase apartment 18J violated fair housing guarantees pursuant to New York City, New York State and federal law.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) can encompass a disabled tenant’s request to transfer to a vacant lower-floor unit within the same apartment building, because the relevant dwelling may include the entire building; whether the accommodation is required remains a fact-specific reasonableness inquiry.

Bentley v. Peace and Quiet Realty 2 LLC · filed 2005-05-03(f)(3)(B)

Thus, consistent with the statutory definition of “dwelling,” the generous construction afforded to the FHAA, and case law wherein courts considered similar accommodation requests, this court finds that Bentley’s request to move to a lower-floor unit within her apartment building potentially affords her the opportunity to use and enjoy her “dwelling” within the meaning of the FHAA. ... Whether a requested accommodation is required under the FHAA is highly fact-specific, requiring a case-by-case determination.

Section 3604(a) and (f)(1) prohibit refusing, denying, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of race or disability; approving additional housing alone does not violate them absent proof of a discriminatory policy or practice refusing other housing.

Ventura Village, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2005-08-17(a) and (f)(1)

But the plain language of the statute is to the contrary, and VVI cites no case in which a municipality has been held liable under § 3604(a) or § 3604(f)(1) for an action that approved the creation of additional housing, absent proof that the action was part of a discriminatory policy or practice of refusing to approve other housing.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race, and may reach discriminatory conditions that force occupants to leave.

White v. City of Annapolis · filed 2020-02-03(a)

While Section 3604(a) may not regulate the provision of substandard housing, see Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. and Urban Develop., 348 F. Supp. 2d 398, 416 (D. Md. 2005), the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that at least some plaintiffs were forced to leave their apartments for periods of time due to the alleged defects. Therefore, the plaintiffs have sufficiently pled, at this stage, their Section 3604(a) claim.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making housing unavailable or denying access because of race, and discriminatory effect may violate the provision without discriminatory intent.

Collins v. Team Management LLC · filed 2025-09-16(a)

To discriminate against a plaintiff in violation of the Fair Housing Act, housing must be made “unavailable” to the plaintiff by the defendant. Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771, 776–77 (7th Cir. 2009). Housing is made unavailable when a defendant denies the plaintiff access to housing or otherwise denies the plaintiff the right to live where he or she chooses. See id. at 777–79. If access to housing is denied, then the denial must have been “because of race.” Id. at 777. “Because of race” does not necessarily require discriminatory intent. See Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1290 (7th Cir. 1977). Actions that have a discriminatory effect or impact may also violate the Fair Housing Act’s discrimination provision. See id.

Section 3604(a) does not cover mortgage modification assistance when the provider cannot itself make a dwelling unavailable.

United States v. Advocate Law Groups of Florida, P.A. · filed 2019-09-27(a)

Again, § 3604(a) prohibits “mak[ing] a dwelling unavailable,” and the allegations against Defendants do not plausibly state a claim that Defendants did so or could do so.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disparate treatment in housing-related services only when the different treatment is because of a person’s handicap, and a commercial classification is not facially discriminatory merely because disabled residents are affected.

Comm Ser Inc v. Wind Gap Mun Auth · filed 2005-08-31(f)(2)

In short, given the facts as established by the record, we disagree with the District Court’s conclusion that the use of the term “personal care home” in the Regulations constitutes a facially discriminatory classification “because of” a handicap under the FHAA. While the term conceivably could be a proxy for discrimination against the disabled in certain circumstances (as very similar terms were in the above-cited cases), as we have explained, this is a very different case. A plain reading of the relevant regulation does not support the District Court’s conclusion that “personal care home” is facially discriminatory as singling out CSG for disparate treatment because of the residents’ disabilities. Further, there is no record evidence of discriminatory animus directed toward the disabled on the part of the Authority, and the Authority’s explanation for the reclassification is not plainly illegitimate or unsupportable.

Section 3604(a) and (c) prohibit making housing unavailable because of a person's race, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability, and a disparate-treatment claim requires discriminatory purpose to be a motivating factor.

Flat Iron Partners, LP v. The City of Covington · filed 2015-04-30(a) and (c)

To establish a disparate treatment claim under the FHA, Appellees must prove that a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the Appellants‘ actions. In other words, Appellants have the burden to prove that housing was made unavailable to FHA-protected persons because of race, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and (c) (emphasis added); see also Spann v. Abraham, 36 S.W.3d 452, 463 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that, in order to prevail on a disparate treatment claim involving pregnancy discrimination, the plaintiff must prove that she was treated differently than other temporarily disabled employees because of her pregnancy) (emphasis added)).

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disparate treatment in housing based on handicap, including zoning that limits where handicapped people may live.

431 E PALISADE AVENUE REAL ESTATE, LLC v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD · filed 2019-10-10(f)(2)

In the Third Circuit, Plaintiffs alleging violations of the FHAA . . . may bring three general types of claims: (1) intentional discrimination claims (also called disparate treatment claims) and (2) disparate impact claims, both of which arise under § 3604(f)(2), and (3) claims that a defendant refused to make ‘reasonable accommodations,’ which arise under § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Here, the Court concludes limiting assisted-living centers to only one of the City’s zoning districts, the RIM district, and not permitting assisted-living centers in any of the City’s 24 districts that are primarily residential in nature evidences that the City’s Zoning Ordinances constitute disparate treatment against the elderly and the handicapped. As a result, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have met the Reilly threshold for demonstrating they are likely to succeed on the merits at trial of showing that the City’s Zoning Ordinances violate the FHA.

Section 3604 prohibits intentional housing discrimination because of a protected status and disability discrimination, and requires a specific, necessary reasonable accommodation that the landlord refused; conclusory allegations do not state a claim.

Gibson v. Community Development Partners (CDP) · filed 2022-10-18(b), (f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

The FHA “prohibits intentional discrimination—that is, disparate treatment.” ... The FHA does so by making it unlawful to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing “because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) (emphasis added). ... Discriminatory intent or motive is a necessary element of any disparate treatment claim under the FHA. ... Unlawful discrimination under the FHA includes a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Although Plaintiff recites the elements of claim alleging refusal to make reasonable accommodations, she does not allege facts to support these statements as required to survive dismissal. This is insufficient to state a claim. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). ... Therefore, even if the Court assumes that Plaintiff has a qualifying disability that Defendants knew about (factors one and two), it is impossible to assess whether the unspecified accommodation was necessary or whether Defendants failed to implement it (factors three and four).

Section 3604(f)(3)(A) bars refusing a reasonable and necessary disability-related modification at the disabled person’s expense, while § 3604(f)(2) bars intentional disability-based disparate treatment in housing services or facilities; a provider may request non-excessive supporting information and take a reasonable time to respond.

Kooman v. Boulder Bluff Condominiums · filed 2020-11-05(f)(2), (f)(3)(A)

A housing provider’s delay in answering a request may count as a refusal, even if it never explicitly denies the request. ... And a housing provider’s request for more information may not necessarily count as a refusal, even if in the interim it does not allow a modification to go forward until the information is provided (so long as the provider does not request “unreasonably excessive information”). ... Still, any delay in responding to a request must be reasonable. ... Section 3604(f) authorizes lawsuits based on “disparate treatment.” Hollis, 760 F.3d at 538. A disparate-treatment claim requires a showing of “intentional discrimination.” Id. at 537. But that did not happen.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of disability, and allegations that municipal enforcement was motivated by opposition to sober houses can plausibly state a disparate-treatment claim.

Vanderburgh House LLC v. City of Worcester · filed 2021-03-30(f)(1)

Under the FHAA, it is “unlawful . . . . to 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 (A) that buyer or renter, (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) (A)–(C). ... The Plaintiffs have asserted an FHAA claim under both a failure to accommodate and disparate treatment theory. ... Viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the evidence demonstrates that the City’s cease-and-desist letters at both the Germain Street and Kenwood Avenue properties were at least partially motivated by pressure from residents to prevent the operation of sober houses in the neighborhood. ... Again, given prior precedent including the recent decision in Crossing II upholding the rights of municipalities to enforce health and safety codes in circumstances similar to the instant case, it is questionable whether even with a fully developed record the Plaintiffs could prevail on their disparate treatment claim. At the same time, they have plausibly stated a disparate treatment claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making unavailable or denying a dwelling because of handicap, and a disparate-treatment plaintiff must plead facts supporting a plausible inference that discriminatory purpose motivated the challenged action.

Oxford House Inc v. Township of North Bergen · filed 2025-10-24(f)(1)

The FHA makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap,” or “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2). This includes discriminatory actions taken by public entities, such as the Township, that have the effect of denying housing to otherwise qualified individuals with handicaps. ... To establish disparate treatment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “some discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor behind the challenged action.”

Section 3604 prohibits housing discrimination based on disability and 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.

Hinneberg v. Big Stone County Housing & Redevelopment Authority · filed 2005-11-23(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The FHAA makes it illegal “[t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of [that buyer or renter’s] handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). ... In light of these requirements, we conclude that the broad phrase in the FHAA — “to otherwise make unavailable or deny” a dwelling — makes the FHAA applicable to public housing authorities administering Section 8 housing voucher programs. ... Thus, Hinneberg’s proposed accommodation is “necessary to afford [her] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(c) requires a plaintiff to show a statement, that it concerned the sale or rental of a dwelling, and that it indicated a preference based on protected-class membership.

Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. Kelly · filed 2019-01-31(c)

Plaintiff must establish three elements to state a violation of § 3604(c) : that (1) Kelly made a statement; (2) the statement was made "with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling;" and (3) the statement indicated a preference based on protected class membership.

Section 3604(c) prohibits statements about renting a dwelling that indicate a preference against renting to a person because of a disability, judged from the perspective of an ordinary listener.

Root v. Salazar · filed 2019-08-27(c)

An ordinary listener, as well as a reasonable jury, could only understand Salazar’s statements to mean that Salazar had a preference against renting the unit to a person witt a mobility handicap.

Section 3604(a) can prohibit a facially neutral housing restriction that has a discriminatory effect without discriminatory intent when the circumstances support relief, under a fact-sensitive analysis.

Villas West II of Willowridge v. McGlothin · filed 2006-01-30(a)

In summary, we conclude that the trial court's finding that the restrictive covenant against leasing violated the Fair Housing Act is not clearly erroneous. MceQlothin made a prima facie showing of a violation of the Act, and, although the Association demonstrated a bona fide and legitimate justification for the housing action, Mclothin showed that less discriminatory alternatives were available. Hispanics United, 988 F.Supp. at 1162. Of the four Arlington II factors, three factors favor McGilothin, although one of those factors favors her only slightly, and one factor favors the Association. While we think this is a close case, we cannot say the trial court's finding of a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act is clearly erroneous. In doing so, we do not intend to imply that all restrictive covenants prohibiting leasing violate the federal Fair Housing Act. Rather, this is complex, fact-sensitive analysis that should not be taken to apply to all such covenants.

Section 3604(a) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of race or color, but the court treated the FHA as not reaching a commercial loan transaction absent allegations that the discrimination targeted residents or intended residents of the dwelling.

CDMR LLC v. First United Bank and Trust Company · filed 2022-09-12(a)

The FHA makes it unlawful to (1) “make unavailable or deny” a dwelling to any person; (2) 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 therewith” or (3) discriminate against any person in making available a “residential real estate-related transaction” – because of the person’s “race [or] color.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(b) and § 3605(a). ... In the amended complaint, plaintiffs do not allege any facts to plausibly support an inference that defendant discriminated against any person or class of persons who was expected to be living in the apartment complex because of race or color. ... Consequently, the court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to state plausible FHA claims against defendant.

Section 3604 does not give a nonresident owner a discrimination claim based solely on harm to a residential property held as a commercial venture, absent alleged discrimination against its residents or prospective residents.

Home Quest Mortgage LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance · filed 2004-10-12(a)-(b)

Even if the commercial property owner suffers discrimination, the commercial property owner has not been denied any housing. In this case, as in Shaikh and Lunini, plaintiffs were not denied the use of a dwelling because of defendants’ alleged discrimination. Ms. Huffman owned the upstairs residential rental unit purely as a commercial endeavor. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604.

Section 3604(f)(2) treats liability insurance for adult family homes as a service connected with a dwelling.

Nevels v. Western World Ins. Co., Inc. · filed 2004-12-10(f)(2)

Giving the FHA a broad and generous construction, ... the Court concludes that the liability insurance provided by Defendant to Plaintiffs constitutes a service in connection with a dwelling.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits handicap discrimination by a provider of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling.

Greenlaw v. Tower Adams · filed 2012-07-26(f)(2)

The district court properly dismissed Greenlaw’s FHAA claim based on 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) because defendants Gage and Adams, who allegedly discriminated against Greenlaw, had no obligation to provide services or facilities in connection with her residence. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2) (prohibiting discrimination based on handicap by the provider of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling).

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in housing-related services after a dwelling has been sold or rented, as well as discrimination during the initial sale or rental.

Davis v. City of New York · filed 2012-10-09(b)

For three reasons, I conclude that the law is best understood to prohibit post as well as pre-acquisition discrimination in the provision of housing-related services.

Section 3604(b) prohibits sex discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing and related services or facilities; equal total access does not excuse assigning materially less favorable times to one sex.

Curto v. Country Place Condominium Assn · filed 2019-04-22(b)

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), makes it an unlawful housing practice 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 therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” ... But this is not enough to save the pool schedule, which discriminates in its allotment of different times to men and women in addition to employing sex as its criterion. ... In light of these specific inequitable features, the schedule discriminates against women under the FHA even though it provides roughly equal aggregate swimming time to each gender.

Sections 3604(a) and (b) prohibit making a dwelling unavailable or discriminating in its sale, rental, or related services because of race, including providing property or hazard insurance differently because of race.

Connectors Realty Group Corporation, The v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company · filed 2019-10-09(a), (b)

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…,” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), or “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 therewith, because of race…,” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). United States Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations make clear that “[r]efusing to provide…property or hazard insurance for dwellings or providing such services or insurance differently because of race…” violates the FHA. 24 C.F.R. § 100.70(d)(4). ... To state an FHA claim, the plaintiff must show “that the defendant had a discriminatory intent when making its decision or by showing that the decision caused a discriminatory effect.” Edwards v. Lake Terrace Condo. Ass’n, 2011 WL 1548023, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2011). A showing of discriminatory intent sets forth a disparate treatment claim, and a showing of discriminatory effect sets forth a disparate impact claim. The Court analyzes each in turn. ... These allegations suffice to stave off a motion to dismiss. As such, the motion to dismiss Count I is denied. ... Without a sufficient pleading regarding a statistical disparity in State Farm’s claims, the Court cannot find that Nash has stated a claim under a disparate impact theory. Therefore, the motion to dismiss Count XI is granted.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of dwelling rental, or in related housing services, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Scutt v. Family Life Center, Inc. · filed 2020-09-17(b)

Plaintiff does not allege facts entitling her to relief under the FHA. She offers vague and conclusory allegations that Defendant denied her access to benefits based on race and sexual orientation, possibly due to the “funder’s” religious values and Defendant’s association with Christian organizations. However, these insufficient facts fail to show that Defendant denied her application for benefits because of her race or sexual orientation, as opposed to other grounds for ineligibility. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FHA claim. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend this claim.

Section 3604(f)(1) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of disability to a buyer or renter, while § 3604(f)(2) bars disability discrimination in rental terms or in housing-related services and facilities, including for any person, but does not cover discrimination incidental to a complete denial of housing.

Wartluft v. Milton Hershey Sch and Sch Tru · filed 2021-02-01(f)(1) and (f)(2)

Section 3604(f)(1) is the heart of the Act. It forbids “mak[ing] unavailable or deny[ing], a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of—(A) that buyer or renter.” “ ‘To rent’ includes to lease, to sublease, to let and otherwise to grant for a consideration the right to occupy premises not owned by the occupant.” Id. § 3602(e). This claim turns on whether Abbie “rente[d]” her housing from the School. Both parties agree that she did not formally lease or sublease it. But her parents argue that the chores she had to do around the student house counted as consideration. ... Here, by contrast, Abbie provided no consideration for her housing. Though the School made her do chores, the chores did not help Abbie get housing and were not part of a bargain. Instead, the chores were more like homework: a core part of her educational experience to prepare her for life after school. Indeed, as the School’s counsel explained at oral argument, if a student could not physically perform chores, the School would not deny her education or housing. The School housed Abbie out of charity. That free student-housing model falls outside the Act. ... Abbie’s parents next focus on § 3604(f)(2), which bans discrimination “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.” ... A graduation ceremony is not a term, condition, or privilege of renting. Though it is perhaps a service, it is not offered “in connection with” housing, as required by paragraph (f)(2). The School offered the graduation ceremony not as a housing benefit, but as part of the School experience. Day schools have graduations too. ... Unlike the graduation ceremony, the barbecue arguably happened in connection with Abbie’s dwelling. And because paragraph (f)(2) is broader than (f)(1), covering “any person” and not just a “buyer or renter,” it does not matter whether she gave consideration. Yet this claim still fails because it just repackages their failed (f)(1) claim. ... But paragraph (f)(2) does not cover discrimination incidental to the complete denial of housing. That discrimination is covered by paragraph (f)(1), which focuses on access to a dwelling. By contrast, (f)(2) focuses on services and facilities offered in connection with a dwelling once a person has access to that dwelling. They are not inherently tied to who uses them. ... If (f)(2) did cover discrimination incidental to the complete denial of housing, it would swallow up (f)(1) and its limitations. Technically, one “facilit[y] in connection with [a] dwelling” is the housing space itself, so any denial of housing covered by (f)(1) would also violate (f)(2). But that would read (f)(1)’s limit of its coverage to “buyer[s] or renter[s]” out of the statute. And as the District Court correctly noted, we avoid reading one part of a statute to render other parts meaningless. Rep. of Sudan v. Harrison, 139 S. Ct. 1048, 1058 (2019). So the Act does not apply. Summary judgment was proper.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination based on race or disability in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling and in related services or facilities.

SULLIVAN v. CHESTER WATER AUTHORITY · filed 2022-07-22(b), (f)

Plaintiff seeks to recover under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which prohibits discrimination based on race or disability in the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), (f). ... To state a disparate impact claim, a plaintiff must allege that a facially neutral policy of the YMCA serves to disadvantage a particular minority. ... To proceed on a failure to accommodate claim, Plaintiff must allege that he requested an accommodation for his disability, that the accommodation was needed to permit him to “use and enjoy the housing in question,” and that his request was denied. ... Plaintiff does not allege that access through the door was necessary, that he was denied access through the door, or that he asked to use the door without a cart and was denied. ... Finally, Plaintiff has not asserted an actionable disparate treatment claim. ... If Plaintiff attempts to assert a disparate-treatment claim based on race, although Plaintiff alleges that some unidentified residents made racially disparaging remarks to him, he does not allege a defendant made the remarks and his assertion that Defendant YMCA did not prevent the residents from making the remarks, without more, is insufficient to sustain a claim against the YMCA.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) prohibits discrimination against a person with a handicap in providing services or facilities connected with a dwelling because of that handicap.

Watkins v. Chau · filed 2025-09-04(f)(2)(A)

The FHAA provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person . . . in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [a] dwelling, because of a handicap of . . . that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A). ... The complaint does not allege that Flacks refused any request from Watkins for a reasonable accommodation or otherwise discriminated against Watkins in the provision of services or facilities because of Watkins’ disability.

Section 3604(b) prohibits race-based discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental, including associated services and facilities.

Horton · filed 2025-11-05(b)

These additional rights included access to “club facilities.” Dkt. 21-1 at 1. As such, “[t]hese rights fall squarely within the common usage definitions of ‘privileges, services, and facilities associated with a dwelling.’” Watts, 133 F.4th at 1042. Plaintiff has also satisfactorily alleged that he is a “Black/African-American male,” and therefore a member of a protected class under the FHA. Dkt. 21 ¶ 12. However, Plaintiff has also not sufficiently pled facts suggesting that Horton’s treatment by Defendants Armstrong and Skene, when expelling and barring him from entering the clubhouse, stemmed from racial discriminatory animus. See id. ¶¶ 12–32. ... Instead, all of Plaintiff’s allegations suggest a discriminatory animus stemming from his disability and that he was treated differently from non-disabled residents. ... Because none of the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint can support a claim for unlawful race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), the Court dismisses Count III for stating an insufficient claim.

Section 3604 prohibits housing discrimination based on protected characteristics in the availability of dwellings and in rental terms, conditions, privileges, services, or facilities.

APONTE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT · filed 2020-04-08(a), (b)

[I]t shall be unlawful— (a) 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. ... Under Section 3604(b), a plaintiff must make a showing that a member of a statutorily protected class was not offered the same terms, conditions or privileges of rental of a dwelling or not provided the same services or facilities in connection therewith made available to others under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference of prohibited discrimination. ... Standing alone, this generalized allegation of discrimination is insufficient to state a claim under the FHA. Aponte’s claims under the FHA will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) prohibits disability-based discrimination in services connected with a rental dwelling.

Green v. Lakeside Manor Home for Adults, Inc. · filed 2012-12-12(f)(2)(A)

The defendants’ own submissions demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs’ disabilities were a “motivating factor” behind the defendants’ alleged failure to provide the mandated level of telephone service (Smith & Lee Assoc., Inc. v City of Taylor, Mich., 102 F3d 781, 790 [6th Cir 1996], quoting Arlington Hgts. v Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 US 252, 270 [1977]; see Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v City of Middletown, 294 F3d 35, 49 [2d Cir 2002], cert denied 537 US 813 [2002]).