Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge

• Decision Date: 19 March 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 11–391–JJB.
• Citation: 932 F.Supp.2d 683
• Parties: OXFORD HOUSE, INC., et al. v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

932 F.Supp.2d 683

OXFORD HOUSE, INC., et al.

v.CITY OF BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.

Civil Action No. 11–391–JJB.

United States District Court,

M.D. Louisiana.

March 19, 2013.

Morgan Whitney Williams, Cashauna Hill, Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, John Nelson Adcock, Law Offices of John N. Adcock, New Orleans, LA, Steven G. Polin, Washington, DC, for Oxford House, Inc., et al.

Joseph K. Scott, III, Kristen Lundin Craig, EBR Parish Attorney, Baton Rouge, LA, for City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

RULING ON CROSS–MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Oxford House, Inc., Danjean Causeway LLC, and Raymond and Glenda Roy (collectively “Oxford House”) (Doc. 82) and Defendant City of Baton Rouge (“City”) (Doc. 88). Defendants have filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 100), to which Plaintiffs have filed a reply. (Doc. 108). Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to Defendants' motion (Doc. 99), to which Defendants have filed a reply. (Doc. 109). Oral argument is not necessary. For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, except for the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim (Doc. 82) and DENIES the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 88).

I.

Oxford House filed this action, alleging that the City violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. (“FHA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (“ADA”), and Oxford House's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Oxford House alleges that the City violated the FHA by using and enforcing discriminatory zoning ordinances to exclude Oxford House from operating in an area zoned for single-family use and retaliating against Oxford House for exercising their rights under the FHA. (Doc. 47). Oxford House further alleges that the City violated the ADA by discriminating against Oxford House because of a disability. Finally, Oxford House alleges violations of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City used its zoning code and ordinances to discriminate against Oxford House on the basis of a handicap and denying Oxford House due process by applying its code enforcement provisions in an arbitrary and irrational manner.

Oxford House is a national program that supports the opening of individual Oxford Houses throughout the United States. Individual Oxford Houses are designed to create a supportive familial atmosphere to help their residents recover from alcohol and substance addiction. Each house is financially self-supporting, democratically run, and will evict any resident who returns to alcohol or substance abuse. The houses do not have state licenses or a permanent staff. In order to become a resident, prospective residents must complete an application and interview with the current residents of the House to which the prospective resident is applying. After the interview, the current residents vote to decide whether to accept the prospective resident.

Oxford House operates seventeen homes in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.¹ Two of these houses, Oxford House–Drusilla and Oxford House–Shawn, are the subjects of this litigation. Plaintiff Danjean Causeway, LLC owns Oxford House–Drusilla and Plaintiffs Glenda and Raymond Roy own Oxford House–Shawn. Both houses are located in an area of Baton Rouge zoned A–1, which is for single family use. According to the Baton Rouge's Unified Development Code (“UDC”), “family” is defined as an individual or two or more related persons living together or no more than two unrelated people living together, unless the owner lives on the premises, in which case, four unrelated people may live together. (Pt. Ex. HH).

On February 2, 2011, the City sent a letter to Oxford House–Drusilla, notifying Danjean Causeway that the property was in violation of the UDC because more than two unrelated persons lived there. On February 4, 2011, counsel for Plaintiffs responded, asking for a reasonable accommodation, and asking that the Defendants treat the House as if it were a single family because the residents of the House are the “functional equivalent” of a family and waive the two-person rule as it applies to the House. In the request, Oxford House notified the City that the residents are recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are considered handicapped under the FHA. (Pt. Ex. T). In response, the City directed Oxford House to file the request with the Planning Commission. (Pt. Ex. V). Oxford House submitted the same request to the Planning Commission as it did to the City. (Pt. Ex. W). The Planning Commission informed Oxford House to complete a form for a reasonable accommodation located on their website. (Pt. Ex. X). On March 17, 2011, the City filed suit against Danjean Causeway in state court for violating the UDC by having more than two unrelated persons living in an A–1 zone.

On March 23, 2011, Oxford House completed the form, identifying the residents as “handicapped” under the FHA. (Pt. Ex. Z). The form, Reasonable Accommodation for a Group Home, defines a group home as a building where “developmentally disabled persons are housed under the direct care of responsible adult persons on a twenty-four hour basis....” (Doc. 47, ¶ 32) (hereinafter referred to as the “A–9 form”). On April 7, 2011, the City denied the reasonable accommodation request, explaining that the form was incomplete because there was no state license and no 24–hour supervision. (Pt. Ex. CC). Oxford House requested reconsideration, asking the City to waive the licensing requirement, the 24–hour staffing requirement and to treat the home not as a Special Home, but as a family. (Pt. Ex. QQQ). There is nothing in the record indicating that the City responded to this reconsideration.

On June 2, 2011, the City sent a follow-up letter to Oxford House, stating that “the unsupported statements of counsel for a party are not evidence of the qualifications for accommodation under the [FHA], and are not evidence of the reasonableness of a proposed accommodation.” (Pt. Ex. DD). The City offered suggestions as to how Oxford House could achieve its goal: (1) placing the residence in an A–3 zoning area; (2) Oxford House could explain how it intends to confirm the handicapped status; (3) Oxford House could seek spot rezoning through the UDC; (4) the UDC can designate a building or group of buildings as a PUD, SPUD, or ISPUD; (5) the Zoning Commission could try to amend the definitions if Oxford House requested such an amendment; and (6) the Metro Council could vote to waive the provisions. (Pt. Ex. DD, at 3–4).

A similar pattern transpired with respect to Oxford House–Shawn, with Oxford House writing a letter to the City and the Planning Commission informing Oxford House to complete the reasonable accommodation form. However, Oxford House asked the Planning Commission whether the reasonable accommodation would be rejected because Oxford House–Shawn was not licensed by the State nor did it provide 24–hour staffing. (Pt. Ex. BB).

II.Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act

The FHA “is worded as a broad mandate to eliminate discrimination against and equalize housing opportunities for disabled individuals.” Bronk v. Ineichen, 54 F.3d 425, 428 (7th Cir.1995). The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate “against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap....” 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). 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). Under the FHA, a handicap is defined as “(1) a physical or mental impairmentwhich substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (2) a record of having such impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). However, “such term does not include current, illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance.” Id.

Similarly, the ADA is a “broad mandate of comprehensive character and sweeping purpose intended to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals, and to integrate them into the economic and social mainstream of American life.” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir.2011)(quoting PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675, 121 S.Ct. 1879, 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001) (quotation marks omitted)). Under the ADA, a disability is defined in the same way that the FHA defines a handicap. A disability is “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Under the ADA, major life activities “include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).

Oxford House argues that recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are considered disabled and/or impaired under the statutes, and thus, are entitled to the protections afforded by the FHA and the ADA. The City argues that alcoholism and drug addiction are not disabilities per se, and a showing that alcoholism and/or drug addiction substantially limits a major life activity is required to prove a disability, relying on the now overturned Toyota Motor Manuf., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002)². Toyota was overturned due to legislative action in U.S. Pub.L. 110–325 in 2009. Congress explained that the purpose of the amendments, in part, was “to reject the...