42 U.S.C. § 3604

Section 3604(f) prohibits denying a dwelling because of handicap, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusing a necessary reasonable accommodation in rules or policies as discrimination.

Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center, Inc. v. Azalea Garden Properties, LLC · filed 2022-04-28(f)(3)(B)

As to the disability claim, the allegations fail to state a claim for a violation of the FHA. Under the FHA, it is unlawful to deny a dwelling to a renter because of a “handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). A “handicap” means a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, but does not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance. Id. § 3602(h)(1). Discrimination under this section includes a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation in rules or policies, when such an accommodation may be necessary to afford a person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). Synthesizing the foregoing definitions, an individual recovering from drug addiction, i.e., not currently using illegal drugs, may be “handicapped” under the FHA if that addiction substantially limits one or more of his major life activities.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in housing terms, conditions, privileges, and related services, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations necessary for equal use and enjoyment of a dwelling.

Newman v. Nazcr Trac Property Owners Association Inc · filed 2022-05-03(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2), 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 handicap” of that person, a person residing or intending to reside in a dwelling, or any person associated with that person. Relevant here, “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 the extent Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction can be construed as requesting affirmative action by the Association, i.e., granting an exemption, the FHAA supplants any limitations placed upon the Association by its by-laws. The Association cannot fail to comply with federal law on account of a restrictive covenant and private agreements. ... As such, the mere failure to meaningfully respond to Plaintiffs’ request may be enough to constitute a wrongful denial. ... In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their FHAA claim.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, unless the accommodation is unreasonable because it fundamentally alters the program or imposes undue financial or administrative burdens.

Rice v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2023-01-13(f)(3)(B)

A municipality discriminates under the Fair Housing Act if it refuses 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); Budnick v. Town of Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008). ... Under the Fair Housing Act, “[t]he reasonable accommodation inquiry is highly fact-specific, requiring case-by-case determination.” United States v. Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 29 F.3d 1413, 1418 (9th Cir. 1994). An accommodation is reasonable when it does not impose any (1) “fundamental alteration in the nature of the program” or (2) “undue financial or administrative burdens.” Giebeler, 343 F.3d at 1157 (cleaned up); Wolf v. City of Millbrae, No. 21-cv-00967-PJH, 2021 WL 3727072, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2021). ... In sum, the court denies summary judgment on the § 3604 claim.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability discrimination in housing and treats refusal of a reasonable accommodation necessary for equal use and enjoyment of a dwelling as discrimination, while a plaintiff must plausibly allege the relevant knowledge, request, and refusal.

Rivera-De-Davila v. Mora Development Corporation · filed 2023-07-31(f)(3)(B); (f)(2)

The FHAA prohibits discriminatory housing practices based on a person's handicap. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). ... In turn, “discrimination” includes a “refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [handicapped persons] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Particularly, the FHAA outlaws 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, because of a handicap” of an individual. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... Further, to make a prima facie case of FHAA discrimination, Rivera needed to plead that: (1) Mora knew of her status as a handicap person; (2) she requested a reasonable accommodation to Mora after the sales of parking spaces 172, 173, and 178; and (3) Mora refused to honor her request. See Astralis Condominium Ass’n, 620 F.3d at 67. She did not.

Section 3604(f) prohibits housing discrimination against disabled tenants, including refusing a reasonable accommodation.

Maggie Properties, Llc, V. Nolan · filed 2023-12-04(f)(2), (3)(B)

“Both federal and state law prohibit landlords from discriminating against disabled tenants, including the failure to reasonably accommodate a tenant's disability.” ... “The FHA only requires accommodations that are “reasonable.” ... We further note that, on this record, it would not have been a “reasonable” accommodation, or part of a reasonable accommodation, to require a landlord to continue to rent to a tenant who sends continual profane and threatening text messages after being asked to stop.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of a person's disability, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules or policies when necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Pinnacle Treatment Centers, Inc. v. Crown Point, Indiana City of · filed 2024-03-29(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The FHAA makes it illegal “(1) [t]o discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of—(A) that buyer or renter,” and “(2) [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—(A) that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2). ... “Discrimination” includes not only intentional discrimination that makes housing unavailable, but also “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). ... It is well established that the Act applies to “zoning ordinances and other laws that would restrict the placement of group homes.” ... Turning to the reasonable accommodation claim, the Fair Housing Act “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.” Oconomowoc, 300 F.3d at 783 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). ... In sum, the record reflects triable disputes as to whether the variance is reasonable and necessary to provide Pinnacle’s residents the opportunity to live in a residential neighborhood in Crown Point.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing reasonable accommodations when necessary to give a person with a handicap equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and a claim must allege the disability, requested accommodation, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Young v. Schwadel · filed 2024-10-17(f)(3)(B)

Plaintiff’s present complaint is unclear as to what he is alleging defendant did or failed to do that violates the FHA. For example, plaintiff does not state his disability,3 whether he requested an accommodation from defendant, a description of the accommodation he requested, and whether defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.4 At present, plaintiff’s claim that defendant failed to accommodate his disability is conclusory and fails to state a claim.

Section 3604(f)(2) bars housing discrimination because of a handicap, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable accommodation when necessary to give a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must plausibly allege refusal, reasonableness, and necessity/equal opportunity.

YOCCA · filed 2026-03-13(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

A plaintiff can frame a disparate treatment claim as either a facially discriminatory classification or discriminatory animus, but regardless of the classification, “the most fundamental element of the claim is that plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant's alleged discrimination was ‘because of a handicap.’” Wind Gap, 421 F.3d at 178 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)). ... Under the Fair Housing Act, “a 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,” constitutes illicit “discrimination.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). A plaintiff “need only plausibly plead enough facts to make out the three elements set forth in § 3604(f)(3)(B): refusal, reasonable accommodation, and necessity/equal opportunity.” Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Assoc., 903 F.3d 100, 111 (3d Cir. 2018). Plaintiffs have pled all three elements.

Section 3604(f)(1) can make a dwelling effectively unavailable when a condition makes it uninhabitable to a disabled person; under (f)(2) and (f)(3)(B), a reasonable-accommodation request need not use magic words, reasonableness is fact-specific, and an accommodation may require changing a generally applicable service to provide equal access.

Hunter v. WPD Management, Inc. · filed 2020-08-02(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

A condition of housing that makes it uninhabitable to a disabled person may make it effectively unavailable to her. ... The law, however, did not require Hunter to state in so many words that she was seeking an accommodation for a disability. ... But whether a particular accommodation is reasonable is a question of fact, determined "by a close examination of the particular circumstances." ... A reasonable accommodation, however, may require changing a practice or service that generally applies to everyone "as is necessary to provide that person with access to housing that is equal to that of those who are not disabled."

Section 3604(f)(1) does not reach mere inconvenience when housing remains available, § 3604(f)(2) does not require trouble-free services absent an inferior level of service, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) does not require a costly accommodation when regular maintenance and alternative housing are offered.

Congdon v. Strine · filed 1994-05-24(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

Thus, we cannot find that defendant’s conduct implicates § 3604(f)(1) of Title VIII. ... Especially in view of the alternatives Strine has offered the Congdons, we find no basis in § 3604(f)(2) that authorizes us to order Strine to install a new elevator or to assure that the present one is trouble-free. ... Thus, we do not find discrimination pursuant to § 3604(f)(3).

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

Jankowski Lee & Associates v. Cisneros · filed 1996-07-30(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

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 or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap....” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... The FHA does not create a right to an assigned handicapped space any more than it creates a right to an increase in the number of handicapped parking spaces at RPA The FHA does create a statutory right to a “reasonable accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Whether an accommodation is “reasonable” is a question of fact, determined by a close examination of the particular circumstances. ... The ALJ appropriately found that the two additional handicapped spaces were not a “reasonable accommodation.”

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make a necessary reasonable accommodation as discrimination.

Samuelson v. Mid-Atlantic Realty Co., Inc. · filed 1996-11-27(f)(2), (f)(3)(B), (f)(3)(A)

It is beyond cavil that the manner in which a rental agreement can be terminated constitutes a term, condition, or privilege of the rental agreement itself. The FHAA contemplates that events associated with the departure of a tenant are conditions of a rental agreement. For example, the FHAA allows an agreement by a tenant to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before reasonable architectural modifications. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(A). ... A failure to reasonably accommodate a handicapped person is considered unlawful discrimination only if an accommodation is “necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Rather, the Court holds merely that Samuelson should be given an opportunity to prove at trial that Mid-Atlantic failed to reasonably accommodate him in violation of the FHAA. ... the Court holds Samuelson has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Section 3604(f)(1) treats denial of a dwelling because of a renter's handicap as the discriminatory event, including when the denial occurs at eviction.

Radecki v Joura · filed 1997-06-03(f)(1)

We hold the district court erred in limiting its knowledge inquiry to the date defendants sent Radecki the eviction notice (August 16).

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of handicap, but the court held that its application to discriminatory enforcement of building codes was not clearly established at the relevant time.

McClure v. City of Long Beach · filed 1996-12-20(f)(1)

Given the recent enactment of § 3604(f)(1) and the relative dearth of case law interpreting it, a reasonable official would not have known by clearly established law whether § 3604(f)(1) makes it unlawful for an official to enforce, with a discriminatory motive, the building code for violations of the code by a property owner who planned to open up the building as housing for the handicapped. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim.

The FHAA does not invalidate local rooming-house licensing provisions that are not unduly burdensome and do not violate the Act.

New Jersey Coalition of Rooming & Boarding House Owners v. Mayor of Asbury Park · filed 1998-07-30(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

As the district court concluded, none of these provisions is unduly burdensome on plaintiffs, and they do not violate the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make a necessary reasonable accommodation in housing rules, policies, practices, or services as discrimination; reasonableness requires balancing equal housing opportunity against the housing provider’s interests.

Sager v. Housing Commission · filed 2012-04-11(f)(3)(B)

Courts “have uniformly concluded that the standards for ... ‘reasonable accommodations’ developed under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act also apply to § 3604(f)(3)(B).” ... In “considering whether a proposed accommodation is mandated by the Fair Housing Act, a court must balance the plaintiffs interest in equal housing opportunity against the defendant’s interest in the integrity of the scheme to be affected by the decision.” ... Whether an accommodation is reasonable is ultimately a question of fact. ... As a matter of law, this request was not a request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA.

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

Hibbert v. Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Corp. · filed 2013-03-28(f)(2)(A), (f)(3)(B)

Hibbert’s FHA claim is essentially a re-characterization of his NJLAD and breach of contract claims. As expressed above, the record is too unclear for the Court to conclude as a matter of law that Defendants did not discriminate against Hibbert by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability during the move. Based on the evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could find that Defendants’ alleged failure to accommodate Hibbert’s disability interfered with the use and enjoyment of his home, and contributed to his belief that he was being forced from his home. Accordingly, summary judgment on this claim is inappropriate at this time.

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

Poole v. Housing Authority for the Town of Vinton · filed 2016-08-15(f)(3)(B)

For the purposes of the Fair Housing Act, discrimination includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [a person with a disability] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). The Fair Housing Act’s reasonable accommodation provision may be interpreted using the same principles applied under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires an accommodation that is indispensable or essential to giving a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

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

Put simply, the FHA requires accommodations that are necessary (or indispensable or essential) to achieving the objective of equal housing opportunities between those with disabilities and those without. As the foregoing discussion illustrates, to show that the accommodation was necessary, Brooke was required to show that the accommodation was indispensable or essential to his equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling.

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.

Edwards v. Gene Salter Properties and Salter Construction Inc · filed 2019-06-27(f)(3)(B)

The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, or familial status. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Discrimination under the FHA includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3404(f)(3)(B). ... Having determined that Salter Properties violated the FHA by denying Edwards an accommodation that was reasonable and necessary for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, the Court must determine damages.

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

Barbero v. Wilhoit Property Management, Inc. · filed 2019-08-15(f)(3)(B)

Count 13 fails because Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to state a claim for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Plaintiff’s sole factual allegation with respect to Count 13 states, “Defendants ‘Wilhoit’ denied Plaintiff a temporary condition to allow her ESA dog to go outside off leash due to brutal ice and snow storm.” (Doc. #10, p. 10). The statute 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.” Plaintiff does not allege how Defendant Wilhoit’s refusal to allow Plaintiff’s dog to go off leash during a snowstorm affected Plaintiff’s ability to use and enjoy her dwelling.

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

McGrath v. Dunecrest Condominium Association · filed 2021-05-13(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

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 or facilities with such dwelling, because of a handicap” of a person residing in the dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). The FHA specifies that 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are well-settled: “To prevail on an FHA accommodation claim, a [1] disabled plaintiff must establish that he [2] requested and [3] was denied an accommodation that was both [4] reasonable and [5] necessary to afford him an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling.” ... This is clearly distinguishable from the current case where the Association’s inaction prevents the McGraths from moving forward with the building project. This is not a case where the accommodation was in fact granted, but rather a case of constructive denial. ... While not conclusive proof of necessity, the McGraths have put forward an argument sufficient to state a claim. Taking all five elements together, the McGraths state a plausible claim under the denial of accommodation theory.

The FHAA’s disability-discrimination protections for occupants apply only when a landlord accepted consideration in exchange for granting the right to occupy a dwelling.

Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica · filed 2021-06-07(f)(1)-(3)

We hold that, as to occupants requesting accommodation, the FHAA’s disability discrimination provisions apply only to cases involving a “sale” or “rental” for which the landlord accepted consideration in exchange for granting the right to occupy the premises.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) bars making a dwelling unavailable because of disability, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a reasonable accommodation necessary to give a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; the accommodation must be efficacious and proportional to implementation costs.

Friedel v. Sun Communities, Inc. · filed 2021-08-24(f)(1)(A), (f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to discriminate in the rental of housing “because of” a “handicap” or to refuse to make a “reasonable” accommodation to rules or policies when necessary to afford equal use of a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A), (f)(3)(B). ... As for the Freidels’ claim for failure to reasonably accommodate under § 3604(f)(3), a plaintiff with a disability within the meaning of the FHA or a person associated with that individual must show a “[1] refusal[] to make [2] reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations [3] may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]” ... An accommodation is reasonable under the FHA if it is “both efficacious and proportional to the costs to implement it.” ... The burden is on the plaintiff to show that the accommodation is reasonable on its face.

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

Arnold v. Elmington Property Management LLC · filed 2023-06-28(f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Act Amendments (“FHAA”) require landlords to “make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodation may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... On its face, Plaintiff, “who is unable to work” due to his disabilities, has not asked Defendant to “accept any less than usual in terms of payment.” Schaw, at 1268. Instead, Plaintiff is merely asked Defendant to accept “the same amount of money as any other” resident at Valley Crest would pay, just from two different payment sources—himself and the Jefferson County Housing Authority. In this way, rather than “seeking a waiver of a basic requirement” of Defendant’s policies, Plaintiff “asks to meet those basic requirements in his own way.” Id. On its face, this request is reasonable.

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.

Ali v. Louisville Metro Housing Authority · filed 2023-07-17(f)(3)(B)

This provision prohibits discrimination based on, among other things, “a failure 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). ... As noted above, the requested accommodation must be reasonable. ... Given the documented safety concerns, the burden posed by Plaintiff’s requested accommodation outweighed any benefits. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the reasonable element of his failure-to-accommodate claim.

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

Hiatt v. Sun City Festival Community Association Incorporated · filed 2024-08-13(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful to “discriminate against any person . . . in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [his] dwelling, because of a handicap” of that person or any person associated with that person. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). 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. Arizona courts have noted that the AZFHA is “virtually identical” to the FHA. Canady v. Prescott Canyon Ests. Homeowners Ass’n, 60 P.3d 231, 233 n.3 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). To show that a defendant has violated the FHA, a plaintiff must prove all of the following elements: (1) that the plaintiff is handicapped within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make the requested accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); Dubois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “The reasonable accommodation inquiry is highly fact-specific, requiring case-by-case determination.” United States v. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir.1997) (citations omitted).

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of dwelling-related services, while § 3604(f)(3)(B) treats refusal to make necessary reasonable accommodations as discrimination.

McGinn v. Broadmead, Inc. · filed 2024-12-16(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). 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,” constitutes discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... First, assuming Plaintiff consumed gluten at Broadmead in the three isolated incidents she cites, ECF 38 at 7-9, such discrete, accidental exposures may provide a basis for her tort claims, but Plaintiff has not shown how they substantiate that Broadmead denied her a “like experience” or failed to accommodate her disability under federal law.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of a buyer’s or renter’s handicap, and § 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.

Feliciano v. Aguirre · filed 2025-01-13(f)(1)(A), (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 of that buyer or renter,” or “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling . . . because of a handicap of that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A) and (2)(A). Prohibited discrimination under the FHA includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); see also 24 C.F.R. 100.204(a). “[O]rdinarily, the duty to accommodate is shaped by the handicap,” because “it is the handicap that is accommodated.” Salute v. Stratford Greens Garden Apartments, 136 F.3d 293, 301 (2d Cir. 1998). ... Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts in the complaint that are sufficient to show that he has a covered disability. Rather, he states only that his issues with his landlord exacerbated his medical and mental health issues. Moreover, he does not describe the accommodation he sought and the connection between his disability and the requested accommodation. The complaint therefore does not suggest that Aguirre refused to ensure that Plaintiff would be afforded necessary accommodation for a disability. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this claim for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability-based discrimination in the sale or rental of dwellings and treats refusal of necessary reasonable accommodations as discrimination.

El v. S. Realty · filed 2024-10-28(f)(1)(A), (f)(2)(A), and (f)(3)(B)

Under the Fair Housing Act (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 of that buyer or renter,” or “[t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling . . . because of a handicap of that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A) and (2)(A). For purposes of subsection (f), “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); see also 24 C.F.R. 100.204(a); US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 398 (2002) (“By definition, any special ‘accommodation’ requires the employer to treat an employee with a disability differently, i.e., preferentially.”).

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

Porter v. Services for the Underserved · filed 2025-02-15(f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The FHA forbids discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604. The FHA applies to private landlords, as well as to providers of public housing. Section 3604(f) of 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 of . . . that buyer or renter,” or “[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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)–(2). Disability discrimination prohibited by the FHA includes “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). In this case, Plaintiff has not claimed that he is disabled or that Defendants failed to accommodate his disabilities. In fact, Plaintiff does not indicate that the Defendants did anything at all. As Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants owed him any duty or harmed him in any way, his claims are dismissed.

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

QUEWON v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2025-03-20(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. 42 U.S.C. § 3604. Disability discrimination in this context includes, , “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). ... Ms. Quewon has not stated a plausible FHA claim, either under a theory of intentional discrimination or a theory of failure to reasonably accommodate a disability. She does not describe her disability and whether it is related to her alleged knee and hip pain. To the extent she requested a handicap-accessible ramp outside her home as a reasonable accommodation, she does not allege whether and to whom she requested the accommodation or whether it was necessary for her to use and enjoy her home.

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

QUEWON v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2025-04-29(f)(3)(B)

Disability discrimination in this context includes, , ‘“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). ... To the extent that Ms. Quewon attempts to assert a reasonable accommodation claim in connection with this assistance, she has not alleged whether and to whom she requested the accommodation or whether it was necessary for her to use and enjoy her home.

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

Marlor v. The Housing Company · filed 2025-09-03(f)(3)(B)

Liberally construed, Marlor’s allegations state a plausible claim that Marlor requested a reasonable accommodation that “may be necessary to afford” Marlor “an equal opportunity to use and enjoy dwelling,” and THC refused to make the requested accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) prohibits disability-based discrimination in services or facilities connected with a dwelling, and § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

Jones · filed 2026-04-28(f)(2)(A) (f)(3)(B)

The FHA prohibits discrimination “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 FHA also “make[s] it unlawful to ‘refus[e] to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [an individual with a disability] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’” Grp. Home on Gibson Island, LLC v. Gibson Island Corp., 144 F.4th 522, 532 (4th Cir. 2025) (alterations in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)).

The FHA’s disability-discrimination bans reach adverse treatment—requiring worse treatment than a similarly situated nondisabled person—and its reasonable-accommodation duty requires a modification that alleviates disability effects and addresses needs caused by the disability.

Sailboat Bend Sober Living v. City of Fort Lauderdale, FL. · filed 2022-08-26(f)(2), (f)(1), (f)(3)(B)

The texts of the FHA and the ADA each require a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment to prove that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated, non-disabled person. ... The accommodation must (1) actually alleviate the effects of the plaintiff’s disability and (2) address the needs created by the plaintiff’s disability.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, subject to the limits of reasonableness.

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. WG Chandler Villas SH LLC · filed 2021-03-22(f)(3)(B)

To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3), a plaintiff must prove all of the following elements: “(1) that the plaintiff or his associate is handicapped within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make the requested accommodation.”

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.

Southwest Fair Housing Council v. WG Campana del Rio SH LLC · filed 2021-02-01(f)(3)(B)

Under the FHA, unlawful 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). The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly interpreted this language as imposing an ‘affirmative duty’ on landlords and public agencies to reasonably accommodate the needs of disabled individuals.” McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1261 (9th Cir. 2004). To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3), a plaintiff must prove all of the following elements: “(1) that the plaintiff or his associate is handicapped within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that defendant refused to make the requested accommodation.” See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); Dubois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (listing elements required to prevail on FHA claim); see also United States v. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997) (listing prima facie elements of FHA claim).

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits housing discrimination against disabled persons by requiring reasonable accommodations that provide equal access to housing, and Congress constitutionally may enforce that prohibition under the Commerce Clause.

Groome Resources Ltd, Llc, United States of America, Intervenor v. Parish of Jefferson · filed 2000-11-20(f)(3)(B)

The challenged reasonable accommodations provision simply prohibits discrimination in housing against the disabled by providing equal access to housing options. Because housing discrimination against certain members of society is shown to affect interstate commerce, and that discrimination is directly the result of local bias, it is well within Congress’s power to provide measures such as the reasonable accommodations provision to prohibit that discrimination. ... We conclude that the reasonable accommodations language is neither vague nor indefinite, and therefore reject the Parish’s void-for-vagueness challenge.

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

Elderhaven, Inc. v. City of Lubbock, Tx · filed 1996-10-11(f)(3)(B)

We hold that, on the basis of the record currently before us, Elderhaven has not borne its burden of proving that the City of Lubbock has failed to reasonably accommodate the needs of the disabled in its regulation of housing. ... 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1) makes unlawful discrimination against the disabled in housing. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) defines discrimination as "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The question is thus whether Lubbock's ordinance, as it operates in the context of Lubbock's overall zoning law, constitutes a reasonable accommodation of the housing needs of the disabled. ... The undisputed evidence in the record reflects the City's willingness to interpret its ordinance flexibly and in accordance with the circumstances of each case. Such flexibility may be an essential component of a process designed to provide reasonable accommodation and to operate in the marginal circumstances of the market. ... We iterate that our decision in this case is limited to the record before us, and we have relied on the City's past record of flexible interpretation and its current intention to continue this policy. In sum, our question is whether the City of Lubbock has reasonably accommodated handicapped persons in its zoning decisions. The ordinance sets a framework for decision-making, but is only part of a process. Whatever might have been, Elderhaven has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a violation of its rights under the Fair Housing Act.

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

Phillips v. Acacia on the Green Condo Ass'n · filed 2022-05-26(f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

An accommodation is “necessary” under the FHAA when, but for the accommodation, a disabled person “likely will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice.” Howard, 276 F.3d at 806. ... An accommodation is “reasonable” under the FHAA when it imposes no “fundamental alteration in the nature of the program or undue financial and administrative burdens.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine reasonableness, a court weighs the requested accommodation’s benefits to the plaintiff against the accommodation’s burdens on the defendant. Anderson, 798 F.3d at 362. ... Phillips’s requested accommodation was not “necessary” under the FHAA. ... Even if Phillips’s requested accommodation was necessary, it was not “reasonable” based on the evidence in the record. ... Because of the associated burdens on Acacia, Weiss’s requested accommodation was not “reasonable” under the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing, while § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires reasonable accommodations when necessary for equal housing opportunity and § 3604(f)(9) excludes accommodations posing a direct threat to others’ health or safety.

Kollenburn v. County of Clackamas · filed 2021-02-24(f)(2), (f)(3)(B), (f)(9)

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 in connection with such dwelling” because of that person’s handicaps or disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2).1 This can include “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, where 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). However, “[n]othing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other individuals[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). Like the ADA, the FHA requires only reasonable accommodations and it is doubtful whether this requirement extends to allowing aggressive or dangerous dogs.

Section 3604 does not prohibit discrimination based solely on income, but § 3604(f)(1) prohibits housing discrimination based on handicap.

Akbar v. Interstate Realty Management Company · filed 2022-09-16(f)(1)

We may assume that Interstate denied Akbar’s application because of his low income, but the Fair Housing Act does not bar discrimination based on income. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604. The Act does bar discrimination based on “handicap,” id. § 3604(f)(1), but the undisputed evidence shows that Interstate accepts disabled applicants who meet the income rules and rejects non-disabled (and disabled) applicants who do not. On this record, then, a jury could not find that Interstate treated Akbar differently, or used an income policy with an adverse impact, based on disability.

Section 3604(c) bars housing-related statements indicating a discriminatory preference, while §§ 3604(f)(1)(A), 3604(f)(2)(A), and 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibit disability-based housing discrimination and require reasonable accommodations in rules or policies when necessary for equal use and enjoyment.

Johnson v. Birks Properties, LLC · filed 2022-01-11(c), (f)(1)(A), (f)(2)(A), and (f)(3)(B)

“An oral or written statement violates § 3604(c) if it suggests a preference, limitation, or discrimination to the ‘ordinary listener’ or reader.” ... Therefore, as Plaintiff has adequately pled a claim under § 3604(f)(1)(A) for discrimination for failure to reasonably accommodate as defined in § 3604(f)(3)(B), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to this claim. ... Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s § 3604(f)(2)(A) claim.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental and related services or facilities, and § 3604(f)(3) requires reasonable modifications and accommodations necessary for a person with a disability to use and enjoy a dwelling equally.

Elliott v. Sherwood Manor Mobile Home Park · filed 1996-11-25(f)(2), (f)(3)

Although the Plaintiff does not specify which provision of the Fair Housing Act the Defendants violated, it is clear from the nature of the complaint that the claim is based on 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2), which prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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.” ... Furthermore, discrimination covered by Section 3604(f)(3) of the Fair Housing Act, in pertinent part, includes: ... [A] refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied ... by such person .. if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises ... or a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. ... Thus, this Court concludes that, pursuant to Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., the Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 3604.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability-based housing discrimination, including land-use decisions that adversely or disproportionately affect the housing rights of people with disabilities.

Barklage v. City of San Bernadino, James F. Penman, Tom Minor, Edward v. Negrete, and F.J. Curlin · filed 1998-04-16(f)

We agree. Barklage failed to show that the zoning ordinance makes distinctions based on the status of residents, or that the application of the ordinance has adversely affected the housing rights of any particular group.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a buyer or renter because of that person's handicap, but it does not supersede § 202's permission for a federally assisted housing sponsor to serve only some classes of handicapped persons.

Beckert v. Our Lady of Angels Apartments, Inc. · filed 1999-09-27(f)(1)(A)

Because we have determined that HUD reasonably has interpreted § 202 to permit § 202 housing sponsors to continue to serve only some but not all classes of handicaps, and because nothing in the FHAA indicates Congress’s intent to repeal any aspect of § 202, we hold that the district court properly concluded that the FHAA did not supersede the provisions of § 202 and that OLA’s refusal to accept Beckert’s application was not unlawful discrimination under the provisions of the FHAA.

Section 3604(f)(1) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of a person's handicap, including through discriminatory municipal zoning decisions.

Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc. v. City of Middletown · filed 2002-02-05(f)(1)

Because we find sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer disparate treatment by the City and the Planning Board and retaliation by the City and DeStefano, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to those claims.

Section 3604(f)(1) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of the handicap of the buyer or renter or a person residing or intending to reside there; § 3604(f)(2) bars disability discrimination in services or facilities connected with the dwelling.

Valley Housing Lp v. City of Derby · filed 2011-07-29(f)(1), (f)(2)

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 extended the protections embodied in the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to persons with disabilities. Under the FHA, as amended in 1988, it is unlawful “to discriminate in the sale or rental or 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). It is also unlawful under the FHA, as amended in 1988, “to discriminate against any person ... in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling because of a handicap of (A) that person; or (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2).

Section 3604(f)(1)(B) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of the handicap of a person residing in or intending to reside there.

Sharpvisions, Inc. v. Borough of Plum · filed 2007-01-26(f)(1)(B)

This Court concludes that defendants have violated both the spirit and intent of the Fair Housing Act by limiting the definition of “family” in the Plum Borough Ordinance to exclude one mentally handicapped individual from living in a single family home of his or her choice, while permitting up to five unmarried individuals to live in a single family home without any restrictions.

Section 3604(f) prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, or making a dwelling unavailable or denying it, because of a handicap, and applies broadly enough to protect existing tenants denied access to their dwellings.

Elmowitz v. Executive Towers at Lido, LLC · filed 2008-07-22(f)

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). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Section 3604(f), Plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he sought and was qualified to rent or purchase the housing, (3) he was rejected, and (4) “the housing opportunity remained available to other renters or purchasers.” ... Even though typical FHA claims apply to those seeking to rent or purchase housing, the “language of the statute is broad enough to encompass an existing tenant who is denied access to [his] dwelling because of a handicap.”

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits disability-based housing discrimination, and a disparate-impact claim must challenge a facially neutral policy rather than an individualized zoning denial.

Nikolich v. Village of Arlington Heights · filed 2012-06-20(f)(1)

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)). ... Because plaintiffs here do not contend and cannot demonstrate that Arlington Heights’ zoning policies — as opposed to the individualized denial of the Boeger Place application — have a disparate impact on the disabled, their disparate impact theory must also fail.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a renter because of handicap and applies to municipal zoning decisions.

Daveri Development Group, LLC v. Village of Wheeling · filed 2013-03-21(f)(1)(A)

The FHAA provides that “it shall be unlawful ... to otherwise make unavailable or deny ... a dwelling to any ... renter because of a handicap of ... that ... renter.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A). ... Claims under all three statutes apply to municipal zoning decisions.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability discrimination in housing, including making a dwelling unavailable, imposing unequal rental terms or facility restrictions, and refusing necessary reasonable accommodations, subject to a direct-threat defense.

Dyan Hunt v. Aimco Properties, L.P. · filed 2016-02-18(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(9)

Accordingly, we hold that the FHA protects renters not only from eviction, but also from discriminatory actions that would lead to eviction but for an intervening cause. ... Section 3604(f)(2) makes it unlawful to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with, a rental because of a disability. ... A private entity may not use the police as a front for discrimination. ... But the direct threat exception described in section 3604(f)(9) is an affirmative defense and thus does not aid Aimco at the motion to dismiss stage. ... To assert a failure to reasonably accommodate claim under section 3604(f)(3), 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(c) bars statements indicating disability-based housing preferences; § 3604(d) bars misrepresenting housing availability because of disability; and § 3604(f) bars disability discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and its terms or conditions.

Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. Prewitt · filed 2015-06-29(c), (d), (f)

To determine whether a statement indicates impermissible discrimination on the basis of handicap in violation of Section 3604(c), courts apply an “ordinary listener” standard. ... The inquiry under this objective standard is whether the alleged statement would suggest to an “ordinary listener” that a person with a handicap is preferred or disfavored for the housing in question. ... As such, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to allege a violation of Section 3604(c). ... Under Section 3604(d), it is illegal to represent to someone that housing is unavailable, when in fact it is available, because that person has a disability. ... Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, it is plausible that Defendant may have misrepresented the availability of the Wood Apartment because of the Deaf tester’s disability in violation of Section 3604(d). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a violation of Section 3604(f) of the Fair Housing Act.

Section 3604(f)(1) makes it unlawful to make a dwelling unavailable or deny it to anyone because of a handicap.

Wilson v. Warren County, Illinois · filed 2016-07-18(f)(1)

The FHA makes it unlawful to make unavailable or deny a dwelling to anyone because of a handicap, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1), and to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of the rights granted by the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3617. To adequately plead a disability discrimination claim under § 3617 and § 3604, Wilson must allege facts suggesting that the private defendants entered his real estate and removed personal property because of his disability.

Section 3604(f)(2)(C) prohibits housing providers from discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling because of a handicap of a person associated with the renter.

Gill Terrace Ret. Apartments, Inc. v. Johnson · filed 2017-10-06(f)(2)(C)

Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), housing providers may not “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of . . . rental of a dwelling . . . because of a handicap of any person associated with that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(C). 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.” Id. § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Because “determining whether [Dutchess] poses a direct threat that cannot be mitigated is . . . distinctly a question of fact,” the court did not err by relying on these findings and concluding that sufficient evidence supported landlord’s denial. Warren, 49 F. Supp. 3d at 1088. Like landlord, the court recognized that tenant could obtain another dog as an emotional support animal, but denied the reasonable accommodation for Dutchess because the evidence established that Dutchess posed a threat to others and that Dutchess would cause substantial physical damages to the property.

Section 3604(f) prohibits housing discrimination because of handicap, including making a dwelling unavailable or denying it, discrimination in sale or rental terms or related services, and refusal of necessary reasonable accommodations.

Lundahl v. Gross · filed 2020-02-26(f)(1)-(2), (f)(3)(B)

Plaintiff does not allege facts that show that this denial was because of her “handicap[.]” ... Plaintiff also alleges that the “failure to sell a home to a disability needs trust establishes not only a violation of an accommodation rule” of 42 U.S.C. § 3604((3)(B). Section 3604 f(3)(B) states “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.” Again, Plaintiff has alleged a bare assertion that she was discriminated against when he failed to perform his appraisal on time. Plaintiff does not assert that these actions were taken because of her disability.

Section 3604(f) prohibits discrimination based on handicap in housing-related transactions and requires actionable disparate treatment, disparate impact, or denial of a requested reasonable accommodation; the plaintiff failed to establish any of those theories.

Quality of Life, Corp. v. The City of Margate · filed 2020-02-28(f)

The FHA prohibits, among other things, discrimination on the basis of a handicap in the sale, rental, and financing of “dwellings” and in other housing-related matters. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f); ... To succeed on its disparate-treatment claim, Quality of Life must show that, because of the disabilities of its potential clients, it “has actually been treated differently than similarly situated non-handicapped people.” ... Quality of Life must demonstrate that the City’s zoning decisions had a greater adverse impact on people in recovery (i.e., its potential clients) than those not in recovery. ... Lastly, we address Quality of Life’s argument that the City failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. ... The district court didn’t err in granting summary judgment in favor of the City on Quality of Life’s discrimination claims.

Section 3604(f)(1)(B) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of the handicap of a person residing in or intending to reside there, including through discriminatory zoning restrictions on group homes.

Valencia v. City of Springfield, Illinois · filed 2020-03-16(f)(1)(B)

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 of . . . a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(B). The Act also prohibits discrimination against such individuals 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.” Id. § 3604(f)(2). “Congress explicitly intended for the [Fair Housing Amendments Act] to apply to zoning ordinances and other laws that would restrict the placement of group homes” for persons with disabilities.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person with a disability in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling or in related services or facilities because of the person's disability.

Scoggin v. Turning Point Central California · filed 2020-03-27(f)(2)(A)

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 handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A).

Section 3604(f)(1)(B) prohibits making housing unavailable because of disability, and § 3604(f)(2) prohibits imposing discriminatory terms or conditions on housing for persons with disabilities.

Valencia v. City of Springfield, Illinois · filed 2020-03-03(f)(1)(B) and (f)(2)

Even when the facts are construed in a light most favorable to the City, the Court finds the record establishes that the City’s enforcement action against 2328 S. Noble demonstrates that the spacing rule treats group homes for up to five unrelated individuals with disabilities less favorably than it does a similarly situated living arrangement consisting of up to five unrelated non-disabled people. By maintaining the discriminatory spacing rule and enforcing it against the 2328 S. Noble group home, the City has denied housing and made it unavailable on the basis of disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(B). The spacing rule renders certain housing “unavailable” to persons with disabilities that would otherwise be available. The 600-foot spacing rule on group homes for individuals with disabilities that does not apply on comparable housing for non-disabled individuals plainly imposes discriminatory “terms” and “conditions” on housing on the basis of disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2).

Section 3604(f) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a buyer or renter because of handicap, including in an eviction-related housing-discrimination claim.

Hannan v. Torres-Springer · filed 2020-04-17(a), (f)

As an initial matter, Defendants misstate the law in contending that “[p]ortions of the FHA governing eviction or denying a usage of an apartment unit do not include disability as a protected category.” (Def. Obj. (Dkt. No. 78) at 11) This argument is premised on 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), but another section of the FHA plainly 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). Given that it is undisputed that Plaintiff has alleged that he was evicted because of his disability (see Def. Obj. (Dkt. No. 78) at 11), Plaintiff has stated an FHA claim for disability discrimination.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits discrimination because of disability in the sale or rental of a dwelling and requires a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment to show protected rights, discriminatory conduct, and a distinct and palpable injury.

Gilbert v. Martinson · filed 2020-08-19(f)(1)

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of any dwelling because of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). To state a claim for disparate treatment under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a complaint must allege: (1) the plaintiff’s rights are protected under the FHA; and (2) defendants have engaged in discriminatory conduct by which plaintiffs have suffered a distinct and palpable injury.

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability discrimination in the rental or availability of dwellings, in rental terms and related services, and in certain circumstances requires reasonable accommodations.

Jones v. Thomas · filed 2020-08-27(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B)

Section 3604 of the FHA, as applicable here, 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). 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 certain circumstances, a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation can constitute unlawful discrimination under the FHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling or in related services, and applies to defendants responsible for those rental-related matters.

Norris v. Murfreesboro Leased Housing Associates · filed 2020-10-26(f)(2)

Among other things, the FHA prohibits discrimination against any person “because of a 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). ... Here, Plaintiff does not allege that MHA was responsible for renting or managing Plaintiff’s dwelling at Chariot Pointe. Thus, MHA was not in a position to discriminate against Plaintiff in the manner contemplated by this subsection of the FHA—modifying her apartment, allowing accommodations for equal use and enjoyment of her apartment, or designing and constructing new units. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against MHA under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability-based discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental and in related services or facilities.

Courtney v. Housing Authority of the County of Kings · filed 2021-01-19(f)(2)

The FHA makes it illegal “[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[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... Plaintiff, however, has not alleged any facts from which the inference can be drawn that HAKC engaged in the allegedly improper conduct “because of” her handicap. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint does not explain why HAKC ultimately denied her requests.

Section 3604(f)(1) makes it unlawful to deny or make a dwelling unavailable because of a person's disability, including through a municipal zoning decision.

Trinity Sober Living, LLC v. Village of Hinsdale · filed 2021-03-18(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 [disability].” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)). ... Both statutes apply to municipal zoning decisions. Id. at 967.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it because of a disability, including in municipal zoning decisions.

Perricone-Bernovich v. Village of Head of the Harbor · filed 2021-04-16(f)(1)

The FHA provides that 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 disability. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). These provisions are applicable to municipal zoning decisions.

Section 3604(a) prohibits property owners and municipalities from blocking or impeding the provision of housing because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Farris v. Allen · filed 2021-06-09(a)

“The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits property owners and municipalities from blocking or impeding the provision of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” ... “Plaintiff does not allege that she was blocked or impeded from housing on the basis of her race.” ... “None of her complaints against Mr. Allen states a claim for housing discrimination under the FHA.”

Section 3604 governs discrimination in the sale of housing and requires facts showing that discriminatory action was taken against a plaintiff because of a protected class.

Jones v. Marsh · filed 2021-07-23

Section 3604 governs discrimination in the sale of housing, and Section 3605 governs discrimination in residential real estate-related transactions. ... As already noted, the Complaint does not sufficiently allege Plaintiff is a member of any protected class. Moreover, even if the Complaint did allege that Plaintiff was a member of a protected class, it does not allege any facts to support that discriminatory actions were taken against Plaintiff on account of the purported class.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability-based discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling's sale or rental or related services, including post-acquisition hostile housing environment claims, and requires intentionality and discriminatory animus.

Zlotnick v. Crystal Run Village, Inc. · filed 2021-10-27(f)(2)

Courts in this circuit have also applied Section 3604(f)(2) to conduct after the sale or rental of a dwelling, known as “post-acquisition conduct.” ... Put another way, each theory of liability under Section 3604(f)(2) of the Fair Housing Act, including the creation of a hostile housing environment, requires intentionality and discriminatory animus on the part of the defendants to subject a tenant to unlawful conduct, that is, that the defendants subjected a tenant to discrimination or hostility because of the disability.

Section 3604 broadly prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, or national origin and reaches discriminatory use of zoning laws; a plaintiff may prove a violation through discriminatory intent or disparate impact.

Valentin v. Town of Natick · filed 2022-09-27

The FHA is broadly construed to effectuate its remedial ...

Section 3604(f) prohibits housing discrimination because of a person's disability, so a claim requires allegations that the defendants acted because of the plaintiff's handicap.

Christian v. Rancho Grande Manufactured Home Community · filed 2022-11-22(f)

The one exception would be the Fair Housing Act claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f), which prohibits housing discrimination against persons with disabilities. Christian does not explain why such a claim would be appropriate here. Her complaint alleges that the defendants’ conduct caused her physical and mental injuries, and that she is on disability as a result. Dkt. No. 98 at 94. But she does not allege that the defendants acted because of any handicap of hers, which is what the Fair Housing Act claim would require.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits discriminating in the sale or rental of housing, or making a dwelling unavailable or denying it, because of a renter’s disability.

Martin v. RUREDY808, L.L.C. · filed 2023-02-09(f)(1)

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 of … that buyer or renter … or any person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available.”

Section 3604(f) prohibits disability discrimination in housing, but a facially discriminatory restriction may comply with the statute when it benefits the protected class and is narrowly tailored to that beneficial purpose.

Matter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v. Zucker · filed 2023-05-04(f)(1)(A), (f)(1)(B), (f)(2)

The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing practices against certain protected classes, including persons with both physical and mental disabilities ( see 42 USC § 3602 [h] [1]). ... To that end, the FHA makes it illegal 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 . . . that buyer or renter, [or] a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available" (42 USC § 3604 [f] [1] [A], [B]). The statute also prohibits 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, because of a handicap" (42 USC § 3604 [f] [2]). ... On this record, we conclude that respondent has demonstrated that the admissions cap was implemented to benefit, rather than to discriminate against, persons with serious mental illness ( see generally Bangerter v Orem City Corp. , 46 F3d at 1504 n 22; compare Community House, Inc. v City of Boise , 490 F3d at 1051). As for the means used to achieve the beneficial purpose, we further conclude that respondent has demonstrated that the challenged regulations are narrowly tailored to implement the integration mandate of Title II of the ADA and that the "benefit to the [protected class from the subject regulations] . . . clearly outweigh[s] whatever burden may result to them" ( Bangerter v Orem City Corp. , 46 F3d at 1504; compare Larken v State of Mich. Dept. of Social Servs. , 89 F3d at 291).

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, or in related services or facilities, because of a person's disability.

WISSMAN v. PGM REAL ESTATE LLC, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT · filed 2023-10-04(f)(2)(A)

Those amendments, the FHAA, make 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A). ... Wissman does not tie her allegations to her membership in a protected class, much less adequately allege sufficient facts from which one could infer that any Defendant intentionally discriminated against Wissman in that some discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor behind the challenged actions, or that any Defendant’s actions or practices disproportionately burdened a protected class of which Wissman is a member, so as to cause a disparate impact.

Section 3604 prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability, including in a residential treatment program.

Adgerson v. Central City Concern Housing Administration · filed 2023-11-01

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 3604. This includes a residential treatment program. See Intermountain Fair Hous. Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries, 657 F.3d 988, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff, however, fails to show a likelihood of success or even serious questions going to the merits because he fails to allege that Central City Concern made any decisions because of Plaintiff’s race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability.

Section 3604(a) permits disparate-impact housing claims without proof of discriminatory intent, while § 3604(f) requires disability discrimination to be because of a disability and does not provide relief for discrimination based on income alone.

Collins v. Team Management LLC · filed 2023-11-29(a), (f)

The FHA’s racial discrimination provision, Section 3604(a), permits FHA claims based on discriminatory effects without a showing of discriminatory intent. ... At least for purposes of screening, the Court concludes that Collins has alleged enough facts to proceed on her racial discrimination claim. ... Collins’s claims for disability and income discrimination are a different matter; both fail as a matter of federal law. By the plain terms of the statute, claims for disability discrimination in housing must allege that the discrimination was “because of” a disability. ... Moreover, neither the FHA nor the FHAA provides relief for discrimination on the basis of income alone.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing or denying a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, but does not cover a denial based on pending criminal charges.

Forte v. Hopkinsville Housing Authority · filed 2023-11-29(a)

Under the FHA, it is unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). Plaintiff, however, does not allege that discrimination occurred on any of these bases. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied housing because of criminal charges pending against him.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination in the provision of housing because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

Carpintero v. Del Valle 969 Apartments, LTD · filed 2023-11-30(a)

Plaintiff does not state what provision of the FHA applies to her claim, but the Act generally prohibits discrimination in the provision of housing “because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” or “because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (f)(1). Plaintiff does not allege that she has been discriminated against on any of these bases, but that Defendant used “intimidation tactics . . . such as proposed evictions, intent to vacate,” and that she and her son have been physically assaulted on Defendant’s property. Id. She does not describe how the alleged proposed evictions or notices of intent to vacate were unlawful or how Defendant was responsible for the assaults. Id. Because she has not alleged discrimination on the basis of a protected category, her FHA claim is frivolous.

Section 3604(f) bars making a dwelling unavailable or imposing discriminatory terms because of handicap and requires reasonable accommodations when necessary to give disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

Affinity Recovery Center LLC v. Town Commissioners of Sudlersville · filed 2024-01-12(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

To state a plausible reasonable accommodation claim, Affinity must allege facts to show that the proposed accommodation is, among other things, necessary to afford disabled persons with an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. ... Because Affinity fails to allege facts to show that increasing the number of residents authorized to reside at its group home is necessary to afford its disabled residents with an equal housing opportunity under the FHA, the Court also GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Affinity’s FHA discrimination claim based upon a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Section 3604(f)(1)(A) bars discriminatory nonrenewal, while § 3604(f)(2)(A) and (f)(3)(B) require disability-related accommodations to address a disability-specific barrier to equal use and enjoyment, rather than a condition affecting disabled and nondisabled tenants alike.

Bass v. Brannen · filed 2024-04-02(f)(1)(A), (f)(2)(A), and (f)(3)(B)

The FHA prevents Defendants from “discriminat[ing] in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of that buyer or renter.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)(A). ... Here, Bass has stated a possible disparate treatment violation—Brannen’s declination to renew Bass’s lease. ... Defendants are free to put forth evidence of a valid, non-discriminatory reason for denying Bass’s renewal at later stages of litigation, but at the pleading stage, Bass’s allegations pass muster for a disparate treatment violation. ... Section 3604(f)(2) prevents discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of that person.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(A). The statute defines discrimination as including “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. at § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... Bass fails to allege sufficient facts to show that his disability is the but-for reason as to why he could not access “the services or benefits desired”—quiet enjoyment of his apartment. ... Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the failure-to-accommodate claim is granted.

Section 3604(f)(1) prohibits making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a buyer or renter because of that person's handicap, a resident's handicap, or an associated person's handicap.

Moore v. Pacific View Apartments Carlsbad LLC · filed 2024-04-24(f)(1)

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 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). ... Here, Plaintiff alleges she is a handicapped person as defined under the FHA and was discriminated against by Defendants “because of [her] visible protected characteristic.” (ECF No. 14 at 2). ... However, Plaintiff does not allege any facts to demonstrate that her requested accommodation was necessary. ... As currently plead, there are no facts showing a “causal link” between Plaintiff’s requested accommodation and her status as a disabled person. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third amended complaint fails to sufficiently allege a claim under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(1) bars making a dwelling unavailable or denying it to a buyer or renter because of disability; the court applied that rule to reject a claim where no dwelling was shown to have been denied or made unavailable.

MILLER v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION · filed 2024-06-05(f)(1)

Plaintiff may also be suggesting that the Chairman violated § 3604(f)(1) of the FHA by placing him in Bostick, thereby making his preferred housing “unavailable.” ... As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts suggesting that he is a “buyer” or “renter” of the space he is occupying at Bostick. ... In addition, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how Defendants denied or made a dwelling unavailable to him. ... In this case, the Board did not “make unavailable” any dwelling over which it had control; rather, it attempted to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability by releasing him to Bostick. ... Plaintiff has therefore also failed to state an actionable FHA claim under § 3604(f)(1), and all such claims should be dismissed.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination because of handicap in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling or in related services or facilities.

(PS) Faruki v. Housing Authority for the County of Sacramento · filed 2025-04-28(f)(2)

The FHA makes it illegal “[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[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). A plaintiff can establish a disability discrimination claim under a theory of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or failure to make reasonable accommodations. See Budnick v. Town of Carefree, 518 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008). ... To plead a disparate treatment claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that: “(1) plaintiff’s rights are protected under the FHA; and (2) as a result of the defendant’s discriminatory conduct, plaintiff has suffered a distinct and palpable injury.” Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999). “Disparate treatment [under the FHA] requires some showing of discriminatory intent on the part of the defendants[.]” McDonald v. Coldwell Banker, 543 F.3d 498, 505 n.7 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, a plaintiff must also plead facts demonstrating the existence of a similarly situated person who was treated better than the plaintiff was, or that “a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the defendant and that the defendant’s actions adversely affected the plaintiff in some way.” Pac. Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ... The complaint also does not plead facts demonstrating the existence of any similarly situated person who was treated better than plaintiff was, or that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the defendants. The conclusions set forth in the complaint fail to state a claim.

Section 3604(f)(2)(A) bars discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling because of a person's handicap.

Deitch v. Medstar Medical Group Southern Maryland LLC · filed 2025-03-05(f)(2)(A)

The FHA prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of [the] sale or rental of a dwelling . . . because of a handicap of . . . that person.”

Sections 3604(f)(1) and (f)(2) prohibit making a dwelling unavailable or denying it, and discriminating in its terms, conditions, privileges, or related services, because of disability.

The Cottage, Inc Comfy Cottage v. Pasco County · filed 2025-08-25(f)(1), (f)(2)

“The sprinkler system requirement does not discriminate based on disability because it does not treat the disabled residents of the Home differently than similarly situated, non-disabled residents of buildings within the same occupancy category under the Florida Building Code. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Comfy Cottage’s residents are treated the same as properly established similarly situated, non-disabled individuals. For this reason, Defendant’s requirement that Comfy Cottage install a sprinkler system does not discriminate against disabled individuals on its face.”

Section 3604(b) permits disparate-impact claims, and § 3604(f)(2) bars disability discrimination in housing terms, conditions, privileges, and services, including refusal of reasonable accommodations when necessary for equal use and enjoyment.

Fussell v. Sun Vista RV Resort LLC · filed 2025-07-29(b), (f)(2)

In Southwest Fair Housing Council, Inc., the Ninth Circuit concluded that “Inclusive Communities did not expressly upset” the Ninth Circuit’s previous holding in Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc., 600 F.3d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010)—that disparate impact claims are permitted under Section 3604(b)—and the parties had not argued the court should “revisit that holding.” Sw. Fair Hous. Council, Inc., 17 F.4th at 959 n.4. Accordingly, Ojo is still the law of this Circuit, and the Court is bound by it. ... 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 or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). This 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). To state a claim under this provision, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) he suffers a handicap as defined by the [FHA]; (2) defendants knew or should have known of plaintiff’s handicap; (3) accommodation ‘may be necessary’ to afford the plaintiff ‘an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling’; and (4) defendants refused to make such an accommodation.” Hicks v. Makaha Valley Plantation Homeowners Ass’n, 2015 WL 328311, at *8 (D. Haw. 2015) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)).

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling’s sale or rental, or in related services or facilities, because of a person’s handicap.

(PS) Faruki v. Housing Authority for the County of Sacramento · filed 2025-09-03(f)(2)

In addition, the FHA, as relevant here, makes it illegal “[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[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). A plaintiff can establish a disability discrimination claim under a theory of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or failure to make reasonable accommodations. ... In sum, the FAC does not plead adequate factual content allowing the court to plausibly infer discrimination because of plaintiff's handicap or disability.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability-based discrimination in housing-related services or facilities, and a failure-to-accommodate claim requires a connection between the requested accommodation and the person's medical condition and equal housing opportunity.

Legge v. Clarke County Zoning Department · filed 2025-09-04(f)(2)

That subsection makes it unlawful “[t]o discriminate against any person . . . in the provision of services or facilities in connection with [a] dwelling, because of [the person’s] handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). ... Legge claims that Defendants violated § 3604(f)(2) by continuing to enforce the zoning ordinance despite “knowing that [he] lacked the physical and financial ability to defend himself or dismantle the structure due to his condition.” ... But he has not shown that his requests for a variance and other accommodations had any connection to his medical condition. Without that nexus, Legge cannot establish an FHA failure-to-accommodate claim.

Section 3604(f)(2) prohibits disability discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing, and section 3604(f)(3)(B) includes refusing necessary reasonable accommodations that provide an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Torres · filed 2026-01-05(f)(2) (f)(3)(B)

The FHA “outlaws discrimination in connection with the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing.” ... “Discrimination includes, among other things, 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.’”

Section 3604(f)(2) makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of housing, or related services or facilities, because of a handicap.

Taylor · filed 2026-01-06(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."

Section 3604(f) prohibits discrimination in housing based on disability.

Sandy Phillips v. Stoddard County Circuit Court, et al. · filed 2026-02-20(f)

The FHA also prohibits discrimination in housing based on disability, and retaliation against any person on account of that person exercising or enjoying a right granted or protected by the FHA.

Section 3604(f) requires a disability-discrimination plaintiff to show that the plaintiff is handicapped and was discriminated against because of the handicap or denied a necessary reasonable accommodation.

Nizwantowski · filed 2026-02-20(f)(2)

“A plaintiff seeking to prove disability discrimination under Section 3604(f) must also show: (1) that he is handicapped and (2) that he was either discriminated against because of his handicap or denied a reasonable accommodation necessary to allow him the same use and enjoyment of his dwelling as other non-handicapped persons.” ... Here, Plaintiff’s complaint largely contains conclusory allegations parroting the statute and includes no facts, other than the dates on which the alleged protected activity and retaliation occurred, to support his claims.

Section 3604(f) bars disability discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling and related housing services, but does not turn a dispute over public-assistance eligibility into a housing-discrimination claim.

PELLA · filed 2026-02-25(f)

The mere allegation that an EA eligibility determination was erroneous or improperly calculated does not convert a dispute over public assistance benefits into a claim of housing discrimination under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3)(B) prohibit disability discrimination in housing, including denial of a dwelling, discriminatory rental terms or services, and refusal of necessary reasonable accommodations.

Schied · filed 2026-06-12(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(B)

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to “discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any . . . renter because of a handicap[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). It also prohibits discrimination “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of . . . rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). Discrimination under 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 such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). Schied’s amended complaint fails to allege any facts that would give rise to a claim under the Fair Housing Act against any of the Module 4 defendants.

Section 3604(c) bars disability-based statements about rental housing under an ordinary-listener standard without requiring proof of the speaker’s motivation, §§ 3604(f)(1) and (f)(2) prohibit burdensome application procedures, discouragement, and discriminatory rental terms based on disability, and § 3604(f)(9) permits a landlord to reject a tenancy only when objective evidence shows a direct threat to persons or property.

Corey v. Secretary, United States Department of Housing & Urban Development ex rel. Walker · filed 2013-07-05(c), (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(9)

Section 3604(c) of the FHA prohibits oral or written statements with respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicate a “preference, limitation, or discrimination” based on certain protected statuses, including disability. ... To determine whether a statement meets the third prong, courts use an “ordinary listener” standard. ... Evidence of the speaker’s motivation for making the discriminatory statement is unnecessary to establish a violation. ... This admission alone supports the FHA violations: by imposing more burdensome application procedures and generally discouraging the Walkers’ application, Corey “otherwise ma[de] [the property] unavailable” to the Walkers because of a disability, in violation of § 3604(f)(1), ... and “discriminate[d] against [the Walkers] in the terms, conditions, or privileges” of a rental because of a disability, in violation of § 3604(f)(2). ... Finally, we affirm the Secretary’s conclusion that the § 3604(f)(9) “direct threat” exception does not apply. Corey makes no showing that his discriminatory conduct was supported by any objective evidence that Mr. Walker posed a direct threat to persons or property, as is required to trigger the exception.

Section 3604(b) and (f) prohibit discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of selling or renting a dwelling, or in related housing services, because of disability and other protected characteristics.

Bell v. City of New York · filed 2021-01-07(b), (f)

To plead a claim of disability discrimination in violation of the FHA, a plaintiff must “allege facts that support a plausible claim that the plaintiff was ‘a member of a protected class,’ suffered relevant ‘adverse’ treatment, and ‘can sustain a minimal burden of showing facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation.’” Palmer v. Fannie Mae, 755 F. App’x 43, 45 (2d Cir. 2018) (holding that “to make out a case of discrimination of this sort, a plaintiff may not need to prove that [his] protected status was a but-for cause of the adverse action [he] suffered, but only a motivating factor”). ... Even based on a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court is unable to conclude that this action can proceed under either § 1983 or the FHA. Plaintiff identifies himself as disabled and contends that Defendants discriminated against him because of his disability. Plaintiff does not, however, set forth facts showing any connection between how Defendants treated him or handled his housing application and his disability. ... The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in which he clearly alleges facts giving rise to an inference that he was the victim of disability discrimination.

Section 3604(f)(2) extends the Fair Housing Act’s protection against discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling, and related services or facilities, to disabled persons.

Alghusain v. Nemeth · filed 2021-09-07(f)(2)

Within his Fifth Claim for Relief, Plaintiff appears to allege a wrongful eviction in

Section 3604 requires non-conclusory allegations of a handicap and a discriminatory housing practice to state a handicap-discrimination claim.

Doria · filed 2026-01-15

THe FHA prohibits such “discriminatory housing practices” against a person based on, inter alia, that person’s “handicap.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604. ... Without adequately alleging a handicap or discriminatory housing practice with non-conclusory factual allegations, Plaintiff has no claim under the FHA nor a claim for retaliation for exercising rights arising under the FHA.

Section 3604(f) requires facts alleging housing discrimination based on disability; a dispute over duct cleaning alone does not state a claim.

Jones v. Deca Realty · filed 2020-12-04(f)

Instead, the amended complaint reads as a landlord-tenant dispute about the proper cleaning and sanitizing of ductwork. Plaintiff Jones has not set forth a disability discrimination claim under the FHA.

Section 3604(f)(1) covers a municipal ordinance that makes property unavailable for planned housing because of its owner’s association with disabled people who would live there.

Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Mayor of Borough of Essex Fells · filed 1995-01-31(f)(1)

In the complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged all elements necessary to support a claim under the FHA. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants’ enactment of the municipal ordinance has as a practical matter, made a piece of property, the former Bible College site, unavailable to Kessler. Kessler claims that Defendants’ motive was to discriminate against Kessler based upon its association with disabled persons. Kessler intended to construct a facility on that property to treat and to house disabled persons. Therefore, Plaintiffs have stated a claim under FHA that is sufficient to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 3604(f) requires a plaintiff alleging housing discrimination based on disability to plausibly allege an adverse housing action because of that disability.

Cavallo v. HPD Section 8 · filed 2024-10-17(f)

To state a claim under the FHA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that: (1) he was a member of a class protected by the FHA, and (2)he suffered an adverse housing action because of his membership to that protected class.

Section 3604(f)(2) requires facts supporting an inference that the defendant discriminated because of the plaintiff’s handicap.

Drawsand v. F.F. Properties, L.L.P. · filed 2011-09-30(f)(2)

But even if Drawsand could make a sufficient showing that she is, in fact, disabled within the meaning of § 3602(h), she has failed to allege any facts from which the inference can be drawn that the County Defendants sought to terminate her Section 8 benefits “because of’ her handicap.

Section 3604(f) requires a plausible allegation of a discriminatory housing practice based on disability; a failure to investigate tenant complaints alone does not state a claim.

LEE v. HUD · filed 2021-01-28(f)

Lee does not allege an unlawful discriminatory housing practice by HUD or its employees as a result of her disability.

Section 3604(f)(2) requires facts showing discrimination because of disability; injury from deficient housing maintenance alone does not establish it.

Bailey v. The Queen's Landing Council of Unit Owners, Inc. · filed 2023-12-21(f)(2)

But those are allegations of injury, not discrimination on the basis of disability. In other words, Dr. Bailey does not allege that she was treated differently (and adversely) because of her alleged disabilities, but rather that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, and that in light of her alleged disabilities she suffered harm.

Section 3604 addresses refusals to sell, rent, or negotiate with prospective buyers or renters because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and does not apply to an unrelated zoning dispute.

Powell v. Adams · filed 1991-07-23

Inexplicably, the plaintiff invoked the protections of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, even though she has not charged that anyone refused “to sell, rent or negotiate with prospective buyers and renters on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” I find no rational basis for the plaintiff to have invoked this statute in the context of a zoning dispute.

Section 3604 does not cover attacks on a tenant’s car that make the tenant afraid to enter his apartment.

Stackhouse v. DeSitter · filed 1983-07-06

The conduct by DeSitter of which Stack-house complains does not fall into any of the proscribed practices outlined in § 3604, and we have found no support for the proposition that the acts of DeSitter would be actionable under § 3617 in either case law or legislative history.

Section 3604(f)'s disability-discrimination provisions apply to an occupant's claim only when a sale or rental is supported by consideration exchanged for the right to occupy the dwelling.

Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica · filed 2021-04-16(f)(2) and (f)(3)(B)

We hold that, as to occupants requesting accommodation, the FHAA’s disability discrimination provisions apply only to cases involving a “sale” or “rental” for which the landlord accepted consideration in exchange for granting the right to occupy the premises. ... We hold the FHAA applies to rentals only when the landlord or his designee has received consideration in exchange for granting the right to occupy the premises. ... Because Salisbury never provided consideration in exchange for the right to occupy Spot 57, the FHAA was inapplicable to his claim for relief; the City was not obligated to provide, offer, or discuss an accommodation.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discriminatory conduct that makes a dwelling unavailable even when the conduct is not tied to a sale or rental.

Whisby-Myers v. Kiekenapp · filed 2003-11-26(a)

Kiekenapp’s second argument regarding plaintiffs’ section 3604 claim is similar to his argument regarding the scope of section 1982; he contends that the statute bars discrimination only in connection with a real estate transaction. Again, the Court disagrees. As the Seventh Circuit and other courts have concluded, the prohibition of section 3604 extend beyond mere sales and rentals of real estate.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires landlords to make 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, while section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in rental terms, conditions, privileges, services, or facilities because of race or national origin.

Ngiendo v. University Partners, LLC. · filed 2021-10-27(f)(3)(B), (b)

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). ... The statute’s plain meaning requires landlords to make “reasonable accommodations” to their general policies. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(B). An accommodation to a policy requires “adaption” or “adjustment.” ... It is unlawful under the FHA 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, color . . . or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).

A housing policy based on limited English proficiency may be evidence of discrimination based on race or national origin under the FHA, even though limited English proficiency itself is not a protected class.

CNY Fair Housing, Inc. v. Swiss Village, LLC · filed 2022-07-08(a) (b)

The Court finds the 2016 HUD Guidance to be persuasive and entitled to deference. Initially, it is worth clarifying the Guidance's scope. Contrary to Defendants' arguments, the Guidance does not assert that LEP alone constitutes a protected class under the FHA. ... Rather, the Guidance argues that a housing policy using language-related criteria may be used as evidence of discrimination based on a statutorily protected class—such as race or national origin—for both intentional discrimination and discriminatory effect claims.

Section 3604(a) requires a plaintiff claiming discriminatory denial or unavailability of housing to allege an actual interest in, or effort to obtain, housing sufficient to show an injury in fact.

McNeil v. Yale University · filed 2021-11-15(a)

In the absence of allegations that any Plaintiff desired, sought, inquired about, or ascertained the existence of housing at any defendant fraternity, that allegation is insufficient to plead an injury-in-fact under Section 3604(a).

Section 3604(a) generally requires discriminatory housing conduct to be pervasive and severe enough to result in actual or constructive eviction.

Huzjak v. Ellis · filed 2021-11-16(a)

To state a claim under the FHA, the discriminatory conduct generally must be so pervasive and severe as to rise to the level of constructive eviction. ... Even liberally construing her amended complaint as alleging that what Huzjak’s neighbors allegedly did—breaking into her home, stealing her property, accessing her bank account, and calling the Department of Aging—were motivated by age and disability animus toward her mother, Huzjak would not state a claim under the FHA because she does not allege that they resulted in her actual or constructive eviction.

Section 3604(a) protects a person’s right to live in a chosen neighborhood from discriminatory conduct that effectively makes a dwelling unavailable, including constructive-eviction-like harassment.

Varela v. Hill · filed 2024-03-28(a)

With the benefit of a liberal construction, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that they are members of a protected class who were exercising their rights to equal housing, and that, motivated by an intent to discriminate, Defendant Hill interfered with them on account of their having exercised their right to live in the neighborhood of their choice. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a); see also Watters, 48 F.4th at 785 (“The rights under § 3604(a) that § 3617 protects from interference include post-sale activity ‘that makes a dwelling unavailable to the owner or tenant, somewhat like a constructive eviction.’ Such post-sale activity includes ‘attempted discriminatory evictions’ by interfering with an individual’s § 3604(a) rights—even if the plaintiff does not actually vacate the premises.”) (citations omitted) (quoting Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771, 776, 782 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). The Varelas plausibly allege that Hill waged a campaign of race-based harassment that effectively made their property unavailable to them and ultimately compelled them to move. ... Therefore, Hill’s motion to dismiss Count III is denied.

Section 3604(a) covers post-sale conduct that makes a dwelling unavailable to its owner or tenant, such as constructive eviction.

Huzjak v. Ellis · filed 2023-06-13(a)

The rights under §3604(a) that §3617 protects from interference include post-sale activity “that makes a dwelling unavailable to the owner or tenant, somewhat like a constructive eviction.” Watters v. Homeowners’ Ass’n at Preserve at Bridgewater, 48 F.4th 779, 785 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771, 776 (7th Cir. 2009). ... Judge Duffin focused on the fact that the plaintiff has not alleged that any of the actions taken by the neighbors resulted in her actual or constructive eviction. Dkt. No. 7 at 3. ... Again, this court agrees.

Section 3604(a) applies to buyers or renters and bars making housing unavailable because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

CHICK v. DOMINIC · filed 2022-01-31(a)

Plaintiffs’ claims fail because they are neither buyers nor renters within the meaning of the FHA. Plaintiffs do not allege any facts that they made a bona fide offer to HSBC Bank to purchase or rent the property during the four-month period in which they occupied it while HSBC Bank owned it, nor do they allege that HSBC Bank refused to negotiate for the sale or rental of the property. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs alleged that they were willing and able to make a bona fide offer which HSBC Bank refused, they also fail to allege any facts suggesting that HSBC Bank made the property unavailable to them “because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Section 3604(b) does not cover retaliation for complaints unrelated to a protected class; the alleged conduct must concern discrimination based on a listed protected characteristic.

McFarland v. Housing Authority of Racine County · filed 2022-01-24(b)

While this does seem to allege retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff has not alleged that it was based on a protected class—for example, she has not alleged facts suggesting that her complaints to HARC and the building inspector were related to accommodations that she sought for her disabled children.

Section 3604 requires a plaintiff claiming housing discrimination to allege that the plaintiff is a member of a protected group.

D'ANTONIO v. BOROUGH OF ALLENDALE · filed 2021-03-31

Second, assuming that Plaintiff intended to bring this claim under Section 3604 of the FHA (TAC at ¶ 8 (alleging discrimination)), he has failed to assert that he was a “member[] of a protected group,” as required to state such a claim.

Section 3604(a) prohibits municipalities and other persons from making a dwelling unavailable because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and a prima facie case requires a showing of discriminatory effect.

Keith v. Volpe · filed 1988-09-19(a)

Under the Fair Housing Act it is unlawful for a person to "make unavailable ... a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604(a). ... To establish a prima facie case of withholding of housing for an unlawful reason under the Act, a plaintiff must show at least that the defendant's actions had a discriminatory effect.

For a racial-discrimination claim under § 3604, a prima facie case may be established by showing that the challenged act or practice was racially motivated or had a racially discriminatory impact.

McCauley v. City of Jacksonville, NC · filed 1989-06-02

A prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VIII (the Fair Housing Act) is established by showing either (1) that the act or practice complained of was racially motivated or (2) that it has a racially discriminatory impact.

Section 3604(a) protects Black persons from discrimination in housing based on race.

People Helpers, Inc. v. City of Richmond · filed 1992-04-13(a)

The first and second factors of this test are not in dispute. People Helpers clearly aided handicapped and black individuals in securing access to housing. Both blacks and handicapped persons are protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a), (b), and (f)(1).

Section 3604(a) requires a plaintiff to show protected status, an application and qualification for housing, and rejection while the housing remained available; discriminatory effect is sufficient, without proof of discriminatory intent.

Soules v. U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development · filed 1992-06-25(a)

To make out a prima facie discriminatory housing refusal case, a plaintiff must show that he is a member of a statutorily protected class who applied for and was qualified to rent or purchase housing and was rejected although the housing remained available. ... A plaintiff in stating a claim under the FHA need allege "only discriminatory effect, and need not show that the decision complained of was made with discriminatory intent."

Section 3604(a) prohibits impermissible race, color, or familial-status criteria in real-estate transactions.

Susan Mencer and Walter Mencer v. Princeton Square Apartments · filed 2000-10-03(a)

Federal fair housing law prohibits using impermissible criteria such as race, color, or familial status in real estate transactions.

Section 3604(a) prohibits refusing to sell, refusing to negotiate, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of race, and a prima facie case requires showing protected status, qualification, rejection, and that the opportunity remained available to other purchasers.

Mitchell v. Shane · filed 2003-11-17(a)

The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a). ... Plaintiffs may establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination by showing (1) that they are members of a protected class; (2) that they sought and were qualified to rent or purchase the housing; (3) that they were rejected; and (4) that the housing opportunity remained available to other renters or purchasers. ... Clearly, the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case.

Section 3604(b) disparate-treatment claims require showing that the plaintiff belongs to a protected class, was qualified to rent or purchase the housing, was rejected, and the housing remained available to others.

M & T Mortgage Corp. v. White · filed 2010-08-26(b)

FHA plaintiffs who allege disparate treatment must show (1) “that they are members of a protected class; (2) that they sought and were qualified to rent or purchase the housing; (3) that they were rejected; and (4) that the housing opportunity remained available to other renters or purchasers.”

Section 3604(a) does not recognize financial status as a protected class.

Pandozy v. Tobey · filed 2009-06-16(a)

His claim under the FHA also fails given that financial status, the basis of his claim, is not recognized as a protected class under the statute.

Section 3604(a) prohibits making housing unavailable because of listed protected characteristics, but non-student status is not one of those protected classes.

Whitaker v. New York University · filed 2013-08-22(a)

We find no basis for concluding that New York University’s (“NYU”) general policy of not providing on-campus dormitory housing to spouses, domestic partners, or dependents of NYU students (unless those spouses, domestic partners, or dependents are also NYU students) is facially discriminatory, because the FHA does not identify non-student status as a protected class. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

Section 3604 requires a Fair Housing Act claimant to allege discriminatory treatment based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin to state this type of claim.

Wilson v. KLD Properties · filed 2018-02-01

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §3604, Plaintiff does not allege that Plaintiff is being treated differently because of “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” Therefore, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a cause of action under the Fair Housing Act.

For a § 3604(a) housing-discrimination claim, the prima-facie “qualified” element is not limited to the prospective renter’s ability to pay; it may consider objective, clearly communicated owner criteria related to the ability to rent.

Mancuso v. Douglas Elliman, LLC · filed 2011-08-24(a)

Under this case law, it is clear that the “qualified” prong is not limited to an objective analysis of a prospective renter’s ability to pay. ... The owner-established criteria in the above-cited cases were not post-hoc rationales concocted to cover intentional discrimination. Rather, they were objective requirements, often long-standing ones, clearly communicated to potential renters or purchasers of property that relate to that person’s ability, financial or otherwise, to purchase or rent the property in question.

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) requires a plaintiff pursuing a disability-based housing discrimination claim to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Noble v. Am. Nat'l Prop. · filed 2018-02-26(f)(3)(B)

To advance their FHA claim based on disability, plaintiffs must meet their burden and establish a prima facie case that they were discriminated against on the basis of a disability.

Section 3604’s fair housing protections apply the prima facie case for racial discrimination to housing decisions.

Joseph Skillken and Company v. City of Toledo · filed 1974-08-28

On this basis the Court finds that the concept of the “prima facie case” under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is further augmented by the Fair Housing legislation and applies to discrimination in housing as much as to discrimination in other areas of life.

Section 3604(a) permits a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by showing minority status, the defendant’s awareness, readiness and ability to rent, and the defendant’s refusal to deal.

Hamilton v. Stephen Svatik and Eleanor Svatik · filed 1985-12-13(a)

Under section 3604 a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing that 1) she belongs to a minority; 2) the defendant was aware of it; 3) the plaintiff was ready and able to accept defendant’s offer to rent; and 4) the defendant refused to deal with her.

Section 3604 requires a buyer alleging a discriminatory refusal to sell to show that she was ready, willing, and able to buy on the seller’s terms.

Mobley v. ROSSELLE · filed 2003-12-30

All of Mobley’s claims come to this: Defendants refused to sell her the Property because she is African-American. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (prohibiting refusal to sell property based on race); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 (guaranteeing the right to contract and purchase property regardless of race); Maryland Code Article 49B § 22(a) (mirroring the language of 42 U.S.C. § 3604). All three claims require Mobley to present proof of a prima facie case of discrimination. ... The Court finds as a matter of law that Mobley has failed to make a prima facie showing as to any of her theories of recovery. Nothing in the record suggests that she was ever ready, willing and able to buy the Property on the terms specified by Long Beach.

Section 3604(d) does not require a prospective buyer to make an offer to establish a prima facie claim that a dwelling was falsely represented as unavailable.

Dawn Martin v. Brondum · filed 2013-07-24(d)

Because the nature of the discrimination alleged was to misrepresent that the townhome was available for sale, we conclude that Martin and Gallardo were not required to show that they had made an offer to purchase the townhome to establish a prima facie case.

Section 3604(f) requires a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination to show that the plaintiff was discriminated against in connection with a dwelling as a buyer or renter.

Jones v. Thomas · filed 2022-03-14(f)

Based on the plain language of the FHA, a plaintiff must—at minimum—allege that he was discriminated against 1) in the sale or rental, or otherwise was made unavailable or denied, 2) a dwelling, 3) as a buyer or renter, 4) because of a disability. Id.; ... As a fundamental matter, Plaintiff must be a “buyer or renter” to maintain an FHA claim. ... Plaintiff’s FHA claims are not cognizable for the simple fact that the plain language of the statute does not apply to Plaintiff as a non-renter.

Section 3604(a) land-use claims require a final decision before they are ripe for adjudication.

Village Green at Sayville, LLC v. Town of Islip · filed 2022-08-05(a)

We further conclude that a final decision is required for Village Green’s land-use claims under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, and New York Executive Law § 296.

Section 3604(a) prohibits discrimination in transactions involving dwellings, and the dwelling must be occupied, designed, or intended for residential occupancy by one or more families.

Eddie Hatch, Jr. v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2022-03-28(a)

The Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against others in transactions involving “dwellings,” § 3604(a), (b), which the Act defines elsewhere to be buildings “occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families.” § 3602(b). An implicit assumption in the “dwelling” analysis is that individuals intend to occupy the home for a sufficient period of time. See, e.g., Lakeside Resort Enters., LP v. Bd. of Supervisors. of Palmyra Twp., 455 F.3d 154, 157–58 (3d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Because the Hatches do not allege that they intended to use the commercial property for residential occupancy by families, the district court rightly dismissed their Fair Housing Act claim.

Section 3604 relates to acquiring a home.

Chambers v. Michigan First Credit Union · filed 2024-03-27

Chambers claimed that defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604 of the FHA, but as the magistrate judge noted, § 3604 “relates to acquiring a home.” Eva v. Midwest Nat’l Mortg. Bank, 143 F. Supp. 2d 862, 886 (N.D. Ohio 2001).

Section 3604 applies to dwellings, not commercial real estate.

Weingarten Realty Investors v. Albertson's, Inc. · filed 1999-09-24

Furthermore, on its face, the Fair Housing Act extends only to dwellings, i.e., residential property, not to commercial real estate, as in dispute in this case.

Section 3604(b) prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling based on familial status, and applies only when the property qualifies as a dwelling used as a residence.

SELVAGGI v. POINT PLEASANT BEACH BOROUGH · filed 2022-05-25(b)

The district court acknowledged that the FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a “dwelling” on the basis of familial status. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b). ... Similarly, here, the Complaint does not allege that Plaintiffs’ properties are being used by renters for long-term stay such that they could be considered the renters’ residence. ... Accordingly, the Court finds no likelihood of success as to Plaintiff’s FHA claim.

Section 3604(b) prohibits conditioning the terms or continued enjoyment of a rental dwelling on compliance with a landlord’s sexual demands.

FOX v. GAINES · filed 2022-05-31(b)

To survive summary judgment, Plaintiff need only show there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s rental, including continued occupation, rent, and the provision of repairs, were explicitly or implicitly conditioned upon compliance with the alleged sexual demands by Defendant.

Section 3604 requires a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim to allege facts showing that housing benefits were conditioned on sexual consideration.

Iula v. Voos · filed 2024-01-16

The Amended Complaint does not (1) describe a specific instance of Defendant making demands, (2) state why Plaintiff understood Defendant to be implicitly conditioning housing benefits on her acquiescence, nor (3) allege that Defendant explicitly made a quid pro quo threat.

Section 3604(f)(3)(C) treats failing to design and construct covered multifamily housing with required accessibility features as discrimination, and the FHA preempts state-law claims that let a responsible party shift all FHA liability to another while permitting proportionate contribution claims.

George v. Overall Creek Apartments, LLC · filed 2024-04-09(f)(3)(C)

Similar to AECOM Services and Clover Communities, the court finds that Overall Creek and Chandler Properties’ claim for contribution is not preempted under the FHA. ... And “failure to design and construct” falls within the meaning of discrimination under the FHA. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(3)(C). ... To conclude, NBA has not established that Overall Creek and Chandler Properties’ state-law claim for contribution is preempted under the FHA. ... To the extent that Overall Creek and Chandler Properties are asking for the entire loss to be allocated to NBA, as a result of NBA’s alleged breach of contract, the court construes their breach-of-contract claim as a de facto claim for indemnification, which is preempted under the FHA. ... To the extent, however, that Overall Creek and Chandler Properties are only asking NBA to pay its “proportion—or pro rata—share of the adverse judgment” arising out of NBA’s alleged breach of contract, the court construes their breach-of-contract claim as a de facto claim for contribution, which is not preempted under the FHA.

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

GARCIA v. CHAPMAN · filed 2024-04-19(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 such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Id. at § 3604(f)(3)(B). ... To state a claim under the FHA for a lack of an accommodation, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff has a disability1, (2) the defendant knew or should have known of the plaintiff’s disability, (3) the accommodation is necessary for the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the dwelling, (4) the defendant refused to make such an accommodation.

Section 3604(b) requires a plaintiff to plead unequal rental terms, services, or facilities under circumstances supporting a reasonable inference of prohibited discrimination; § 3604(f)(3)(B) requires pleading refusal of a reasonable and necessary accommodation needed for equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

TWYMAN v. RECAP PA HOLDINGS, LLC · filed 2025-03-12(b), (f)(3)(B)

“To establish a prima facie case” under section 3604(b) of the Fair Housing Act, Ms. Twyman must plead “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.” More specifically, she must show either “the challenged actions were motivated by intentional discrimination or that the actions had a discriminatory effect on a protected class, regardless of motivation.” ... Discrimination under the Fair Housing Act 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.” To make out a reasonable accommodation claim, Ms. Twyman must “plead enough facts to make out the three elements set forth in [42 U.S.C.] § 3604(f)(3)(B): refusal, reasonable accommodation, and necessity/equal opportunity.”

Section 3604(f)(3)(B) prohibits refusing a reasonable accommodation in housing rules, policies, practices, or services when the accommodation is necessary to give a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; a claimant must plead a qualifying disability, a requested accommodation, and its reasonableness and necessity.

Shomo v. Cooksey · filed 2025-05-16(f)(3)(B)

To state an FHA “failure to accommodate” claim, Plaintiffs must plead facts showing that the requested accommodation was both reasonable and necessary, in light of a disability, to afford a tenant equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. See Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, Maryland, 124 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 1997). While the Amended Complaint states that King is an emotional support animal and that Plaintiffs were required to vacate their apartment, it fails (1) to allege any qualifying disability, (2) to allege that Plaintiffs made any request for reasonable accommodation, (3) to describe how the requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary for the disabled person to be able to use and enjoy the housing, or (4) to establish that Defendants refused any such request for accommodation. In the absence of such allegations, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 3604 prohibits housing discrimination based on specified protected characteristics, but does not prohibit landlord conduct unrelated to those characteristics.

Jones v. Homestate Asset Management LLC · filed 2024-04-29(a), (b)

While the FHA protects individuals against discrimination based on certain protected characteristics, it does not protect against any conduct by landlords. Because Plaintiff has failed to allege that he was discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, his claim brought pursuant to the FHA is dismissed.

Section 3604 requires a housing-discrimination claim to allege discrimination based on a protected characteristic such as race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

Dye · filed 2026-05-13

Furthermore, Dye’s counterclaim complaint fails to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act, as Dye does not allege discrimination in housing based on his race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 3604.