Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp.
Citation | 351 F.3d 361 |
Decision Date | 08 December 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 03-1799.,03-1799. |
Parties | Michael NEUDECKER, Appellant, v. BOISCLAIR CORPORATION, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Michael Neudecker, Victoria MN, for appellant.
Robert E. Lieske and Bradley D. Hauswirth, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Michael Neudecker appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil complaint against Boisclair Corporation. We reverse and remand.
In October 2002 Neudecker filed his pro se complaint for damages, alleging Boisclair violated his rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Rehabilitation Act); the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619(FHA); and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 13.01-13.99 (2003) (MGDPA). Neudecker later sought leave to recast his Privacy Act and MGDPA claims as a common law invasion-of-privacy claim.
Neudecker alleged the following facts in his complaint and in response to the motion to dismiss. See Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210, 214 (8th Cir.1996) ( ). In April 1979 Boisclair property manager Marcia Thompson coerced unidentified medical information from Neudecker's father as a condition of Neudecker's tenancy at Penn Place Apartments (Penn Place). Boisclair owns Penn Place and is a recipient of federal funding. Thompson released this medical information to "third party subordinate employees who released it to other tenants in the building, who released the information to later incoming tenants." This "practice and procedure" of disseminating Neudecker's private information continued for the entire twenty-three years Neudecker lived at Penn Place.
In December 1996, the son of Boisclair building manager "Anderson" and the daughter of Boisclair assistant building manager Fran Lubecke both targeted Neudecker, who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), for disability-based harassment (hereinafter "disability harassment"). When Neudecker complained to Boisclair management about the harassment, Anderson and Lubecke sent letters to Boisclair property manager Sally Ruffenach "containing false counter-accusations... as reprisal." In January 1998 Neudecker received an anonymous threatening letter signed, "The Demon that will haunt you," and in April 1998 Anderson's son pinned Neudecker against a wall after Neudecker had made another complaint. In October 1998 Ruffenach falsely accused Neudecker of "stalking" another tenant and threatened to evict him, and sometime in late 1998 she threatened to evict Neudecker "as reprisal" for his continued complaints about being harassed.
In December 1998 Neudecker filed an administrative claim, which was denied in August 1999 after the HUD investigator concluded "that the harassment was an aspect of [Neudecker's] mental disorder." Neudecker sought reconsideration, which HUD denied in December 2000. The harassment and retaliation continued throughout Neudecker's tenancy at Penn Place and exacerbated his mental health problems, resulting "in alcohol and food abuse that caused damage to [his] liver, pancreas and other body systems." In April 2002 Neudecker surrendered his apartment.
The two statutes at issue in this appeal are the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act. The FHA prohibits discrimination, based on handicap, against any person with respect to the rental of a dwelling or the provision of related services or facilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination "under any program or activity receiving [F]ederal financial assistance" against any otherwise qualified individual with a disability, solely because of his disability. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Both statutes provide for private causes of action. See Rodgers v. Magnet Cove Pub. Schs., 34 F.3d 642, 643-45 (8th Cir.1994) ( ); Robinson v. Gorman, 145 F.Supp.2d 201, 205 (D.Conn.2001) ( ).
Although the district court did not address Boisclair's argument that the complaint was time-barred, we find that neither of the applicable statutes of limitations had expired when Neudecker filed his October 2002 complaint: the alleged harassment and retaliation continued throughout the pendency of his HUD administrative claim and until he moved from his apartment in April 2002. See 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A)-(B) ( ); Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 380-81, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) ( ); Gaona v. Town & Country Credit, 324 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (8th Cir.2003) ( ).
As to the merits of the claims, we conclude that Neudecker sufficiently alleged a retaliation claim under the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act, because he asserted that a Boisclair representative threatened to evict him as reprisal for his complaints that tenants were engaging in disability harassment. See 42 U.S.C. § 3617 ( ); Sherman v. Runyon, 235 F.3d 406, 409-10 (8th Cir.2000) ( ); Amir v. St. Louis Univ., 184 F.3d 1017, 1025 (8th Cir. 1999) ( ); Allison v. Dep't of Corr., 94 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir. 1996) ( ). Although the retaliatory conduct in this case involved only threats of eviction, which were never carried out, we find Neudecker sufficiently alleged an adverse action, at least at this early pleading stage. Cf. Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1050-52 (9th Cir.1999) ( ).
We next consider whether Neudecker has an independent claim for disability harassment under the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act. Although we find no case authority expressly authorizing such a claim in the housing context, decisions in related areas provide the foundation for this type of claim. Several federal courts have found disability harassment in the workplace to be actionable under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. See Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir.2001) ( ); Flowers v. S. Reg'l Physician Servs., Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 233 (5th Cir.2001) (same); Hiller v. Runyon, 95 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1022-23 (S.D.Iowa 2000) (same under Rehabilitation Act). Although this case presents disability harassment in housing — not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Revock v. Cowpet Bay W. Condo. Ass'n
...Numerous decisions of our sister Circuits have recognized such a cause of action in the housing context. See Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp. , 351 F.3d 361, 364 (8th Cir. 2003) ; Bloch , 587 F.3d at 783 ; Quigley , 598 F.3d at 946 ; Krueger v. Cuomo , 115 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 1997) ; DiCens......
-
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc.
...is "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the housing arrangement" (quotation marks omitted)). Similarly, in Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., the Eighth Circuit relied on analogous language in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., to conc......
-
U.S. v. Koch
...under sections 3604 or 3617 of the Fair Housing Act. I find that the defendant's argument is precluded by Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F.3d 361, 364 (8th Cir.2003), wherein the court concluded that "disability harassment in the housing context is actionable under the FHA ...." In Neude......
-
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc.
...terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race" (emphasis added)); Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F.3d 361, 364–65 (8th Cir. 2003) (where tenant’s suit against property management company alleged that he was subjected to repeated disability-based harass......
-
A Herculean leap for the hard case of post-acquisition claims: interpreting Fair Housing Act section 3604(b) after Modesto.
...v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211-12 (1972) (citing 114 CONG. REG. 3422 (1968))). (226.) Id (citing Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F.3d 361 (8th Cir. 2003); Krueger v. Cuomo, 115 F.3d 487, 491 (7th Cir. 1997); DiCenso v. Cisneros, 96 F.3d 1004, 1008 (7th Cir. 1996); Honce v. Vig......
-
Third-party Retaliation Problems
...demotion, or forced retirement unless the individual foregoes a statutorily protected accommodation."); Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F.3d 361, 364 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that FHAA plaintiff stated a claim where landlord threatened to evict plaintiff for complaining that tenants were ......
-
REMEDIATING RACISM FOR RENT: A LANDLORD'S OBLIGATION UNDER THE FHA.
...by tenants, but it did not detail the circumstances under which the landlord would be held liable. See Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., 351 F.3d 361, 362-63 (8th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit may soon determine whether a landlord can be liable for tenant-on-tenant harassment. See Morris v. W. ......