Company bought house intending to use it as a residential sober-living house
By Dan Heilman
BridgeTower Media Newswires
MINNEAPOLIS, MN — The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act both came into play in a nonprecedential decision released recently by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
The decision arose out of a zoning-enforcement action brought by the city of Cambridge against appellant One Love LLC, a company that had bought a five-bedroom, single-family house in Cambridge for the purpose of operating as a sober house.
The house in question was classified as an R-1 district, meaning it’s bound by Cambridge zoning code to have no more than four unrelated people living together in a house — although it places no limits on the number of family members who may live together in a single house.
Co-appellant Nate Pearson lives and works at the house as a house manager. In March 2018, One Love contacted the Cambridge development director, Marcia Westover, seeking information about submitting a request to operate a sober house, explaining that four people were living there. Westover responded that the city would permit up to six unrelated people to live together as a single housekeeping unit. She identified this measure as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA and the FHA.
Westover asked for more information from One Love, including a layout of the house that would show where residents and staff would sleep. One Love said it intended to use the house as a residential sober-living house with up to 14 residents. This was the first time One Love notified Cambridge that it intended to request a reasonable accommodation for this number of people.
One Love’s attorney subsequently sent a letter to the city requesting a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. It also asked the city to treat residents as a family by waiving the provision regarding the number of unrelated persons who can reside together and treat the use of the dwelling as a single-family use. The city said no.
One Love’s attorney then sent a letter to the city attorney stating that it intended to begin providing housing for up to 13 people at the house beginning on July 1, 2018, despite the city’s denial of the organization’s request. In a later letter, the city reiterated that it was willing to allow up to six people to reside together as a single housekeeping unit. The city also asked One Love to confirm that it would abide by that order and submit to an inspection the following month.
The matter was brought before the City Council, and during a meeting, the council declined to allow One Love to house 13 unrelated residents. The council ultimately pursued a zoning-enforcement action against One Love for housing 13 unrelated individuals at the house. At that point, six to eleven people lived at the house.
The next month, the city filed an enforcement action in District Court seeking declaratory judgment that One Love violated the city ordinance by housing up to 14 people in the house. The city also requested a permanent injunction prohibiting One Love from housing more than six unrelated individuals at the house.
One Love filed an answer asserting three counterclaims. The organization alleged that the city’s partial denial of its request violated the ADA and the FHA because it failed to provide reasonable accommodation; it led to disparate treatment; and it led to disparate impact. A later counterclaim alleged that the city violated the FHA by declining to grant the requested accommodation.
Both parties moved for summary judgment based on their claims. Isanti County District Court granted the city’s summary judgment motion, rejecting its standing argument but determining that it was entitled to summary judgment on the merits. The District Court denied One Love’s motion, and the organization appealed.
The Court of Appeals found that One Love had standing to pursue a discrimination claim, agreeing with the District Court. “Addiction has been recognized [as] a form of mental impairment and disability,” the trial court noted.
But the appellate court affirmed the trial court decision, saying that One Love and Pearson failed to present evidence showing that the ADA or the FHA applied based on the criteria for admission to the sober house. Since the organization couldn’t sustain its cause of action for discrimination, and because appellants relied on a disability for its claims for reasonable accommodation, disparate treatment and disparate impact, the court sided with the city of Cambridge.
“One Love failed to present sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment,” wrote judge Denise D. Reilly in her opinion. “As a result, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the City on its zoning-enforcement claim, or by denying summary judgment to One Love on its counterclaims.”
