Field v. Hous. Auth. of Cook Cnty.
| Decision Date | 13 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | 17-cv-02044 |
| Parties | DIANE FIELD and JAKE HOFFMAN, Plaintiffs, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COOK COUNTY and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Diane Field and Jake Hoffman have sued the Housing Authority of Cook County ("HACC") and the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") for disability discrimination. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims against HACC under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("§ 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and against IDHR for violating the ADA, § 504, and a prior federal court injunction.
IDHR moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6) and requests the Court to strike Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive, declaratory and punitive relief. For the reasons stated herein, IDHR's motions to dismiss and strike are granted in part and denied in part.
Diane Field and her 21-year-old son, Jake Hoffman, are both disabled. Field suffers from Asperger's Syndrome, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), and a mild traumatic brain injury due to domestic violence. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 12-14, ECF No. 24. As a result, she faces communication and processing difficulties and often requires assistance communicating. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Hoffman's disabilities include PTSD, a mild traumatic brain injury, aspects of Asperger's Syndrome, and auditory processing delays, among others. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Field receives Social Security benefits from the federal government for her disabilities; Hoffman received Social Security benefits for his disabilities until August 2016, when he enlisted in the military. Id. ¶¶ 16, 21.
Field receives a housing voucher from HACC under the federal Housing Choice Voucher Program, which provides her with rental assistance as a low-income individual in Cook County, Illinois.2 Id. ¶¶ 28-29, 31. The number of family members sharing a household determines the size of a voucher, and Hoffman was listed on Field's voucher until June 2015, which qualified Field and Hoffman for a two-bedroom home in Lemont, Illinois. Id. ¶¶ 6, 12, 30, 153, 162. Field alsoparticipates in two other HACC programs: the Home Ownership Program, which helps low-income families purchase a home, and the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which provides education and job skills. Id. ¶¶ 32-34.
In early 2015, Field arranged for Hoffman to attend Brehm Preparatory School ("Brehm Prep"), a residential therapeutic high school in Carbondale, Illinois, that was better equipped to accommodate Hoffman's disabilities than his previous school. Id. ¶¶ 37-40. Field contacted HACC repeatedly in June 2015 regarding her Housing Voucher Program renewal paperwork, expressing concern about how to report Hoffman's income3 and whether Hoffman should remain on Field's housing voucher while he resided at Brehm Prep. Id. ¶¶ 57-62. When requesting guidance from HACC, Field explained that she often required assistance completing paperwork because of her communication disability. Id. ¶¶ 53, 56-61.
In a meeting around June 10, 2015, HACC manager Angela Francis informed Field that if Hoffman remained on Field's housing voucher, his income would factor in to calculate HACC's monthly rental assistance payment, even though Hoffman required his disability income to live at Brehm Prep. Id. ¶¶ 61-62. Field therefore elected to remove Hoffman from her voucher with the understanding that she could reinstate Hoffman when he graduated. Id. ¶ 63.
In advance of Hoffman's graduation, Field contacted HACC in early 2016 regarding reinstating Hoffman on her housing voucher. Id. ¶ 83. Field had numerous communications with HACC staff about the matter. Id. ¶ 85. In an email to HACCcaseworker Phyllis Johnson in February 2016, Field asked to reinstate Hoffman, warned that she would file a complaint with IDHR or the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") if necessary for Hoffman to be reinstated, and requested that her speech therapist be included in any future conversations to assist with her communication processing issues. Id. ¶¶ 83, 87, 111, 120.
Field and Johnson also spoke by phone, during which Field requested to include her speech therapist in the conversation, but Johnson refused, advising Field that the therapist could only participate in in-person meetings. Id. ¶¶ 112-16.
In the end, Johnson refused to add Hoffman back to Field's voucher, citing an HACC administrative rule prohibiting reinstatement of a family member once that individual was removed. Id. ¶ 88. During this call, Johnson also raised her voice, told Field that it was her turn to listen, and warned Field to not threaten Johnson. Id. ¶ 121. Field was frightened by Johnson's behavior. Id. ¶ 122. She worried that if she filed a complaint with HUD or IDHR, HACC could disqualify Field from the Housing Choice Voucher Program altogether.4 Id.
That same day, Field contacted HACC supervisor Sheryl Seiling about her conversation with Johnson, and again asked to add Hoffman back to her voucher. Id. ¶¶ 89, 123. Her request was denied. Id. ¶ 90. According to Field, HACC did not engage in any serious, case-by-case consideration of Field's request, which Fieldcontends is required by HACC's written policies for handling a participant's request for disability-based rule exceptions. Id. ¶¶ 88, 90-93, 96-101.
Field subsequently filed a complaint with IDHR in February 2016 detailing HACC's refusal to reinstate Hoffman and alleging that Johnson had threatened and intimidated her. Id. ¶¶ 124, 168, 80. Per the Fair Housing Assistance Program, Field's complaint was cross-filed with HUD, but IDHR was responsible for the investigation.5 Id. ¶¶ 124-25, 168.
IDHR began investigating Field's charge against HACC, and in May 2016, IDHR relayed a conditional offer from HACC to Field, in which HACC agreed to restore Hoffman to Field's voucher if Field paid back-rent. Id. ¶¶ 132-34. Field declined this offer, because she was concerned that incurring a debt to HACC would jeopardize her ability to purchase a home through the Home Ownership Program.6 Id. ¶¶ 137-40.
Between May and September 2016, Field continued to seek Hoffman's reinstatement to her housing voucher without having to pay back-rent. Id. ¶ 142. In September 2016, HACC offered to restore Hoffman without requiring back-rent, butHoffman had already graduated from Brehm Prep, and faced with the prospect of homelessness, had chosen to enlist in the military. Id. ¶¶ 144-50.
Over the next several months of the investigation, IDHR took numerous actions to which Field objects. Id. ¶¶ 8, 172. First, the HACC staff claimed that they had in fact warned Field that once she removed Hoffman from her voucher, he could not be reinstated. Id. ¶ 175. Although Field informed IDHR that the statement was false, and IDHR staff investigator Stan Moen did not produce any proof beyond HACC's word that it had informed Field of the administrative rule, Moen advised Field that if she continued to pursue the investigation, her complaint would be dismissed as invalid, presumably on the grounds that HACC had warned her of the consequences of removing Hoffman from her voucher. Id. ¶¶ 176-79.
Second, another IDHR employee, Daniel Padilla, told Field that she could not prove her allegations that Johnson had threatened and intimidated her on a phone call. Id. ¶ 181. Padilla advised her to remove these allegations from her charge against HACC. Id. ¶¶ 8, 180-81. Field followed Padilla's advice and did not include the intimidation allegations in her final submitted charge. Id.
Third, Field requested that her communication aide, Suzy Woods, be allowed to participate in conversations between Field and IDHR to help Field understand the investigation's status. Id. ¶ 198. IDHR initially allowed this practice, but in one instance, Moen refused to allow Woods to join a phone call, instead insisting that Woods email him and state that she was permitted to speak on Field's behalf. Id. ¶¶ 8, 199. Subsequently, IDHR communicated directly with Woods on Field's behalf while excluding Field herself from direct communications. Id. ¶¶ 8, 199-202, 206.IDHR later acknowledged that the practice of requiring Field's advocate to speak on her behalf, instead of allowing both to participate, deviated from IDHR policy. Id. ¶¶ 203-04. IDHR also denied Field's request to speak with IDHR's ADA coordinator to explain why her disability necessitated the assistance of a communication aide. Id. ¶¶ 207-08.
Dissatisfied with the length of time IDHR was taking to complete its investigation,7 Field filed the instant lawsuit against IDHR and HACC on March 15, 2017. Id. ¶ 194. Three months later, on June 20, 2017, IDHR completed its final investigative report, which found no cause to indicate that HACC had violated Field's or Hoffman's rights. Id. ¶¶ 209-10. The report found that Field "did not ask for a reasonable accommodation" and instead merely "sought clarification as to if it were possible or not." Id. ¶¶ 102, 212-13. The report further stated that even if she had requested a reasonable accommodation, it "was not medically necessary." Id. ¶¶ 102, 217. According to Plaintiffs, the final report is erroneous because it disregards substantial evidence in IDHR's case file. Id. ¶¶ 214-16, 218. Field and Hoffman then filed the Amended Complaint on November 16, 2017.
A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. Christensen v. Cnty. of Boone, 483 F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2007). Tosurvive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial