Sw. Fair Hous. Council v. WG Chandler Villas SH LLC
| Decision Date | 22 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-19-00178-TUC-RM,CV-19-00178-TUC-RM |
| Parties | Southwest Fair Housing Council, Plaintiff, v. WG Chandler Villas SH LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Plaintiff Southwest Fair Housing Council ("Southwest" or "Plaintiff") brought this action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504" or "the Rehabilitation Act"), the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and the Arizona Fair Housing Act ("AZFHA"). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49), to which Defendant WG Chandler Villas SH, LLC, ("Chandler Villas" or "Defendant") responded in opposition (Doc. 51). Defendant also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47), to which Plaintiff responded in opposition (Doc. 53). The Motions will be granted in part and denied in part as follows.
A court must grant summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The movant bears the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record, together with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
If the movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the nonmovant need not produce anything. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Co., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000). But if the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute and to show (1) that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and (2) that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 250 (1986); see Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor, First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968); however, it must "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
At summary judgment, the Court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Pure questions of law, where there is no disputed issue of fact, are appropriate for summary judgment. Schrader v. Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare, 768 F.2d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir. 1985). "The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial—whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. "[T]his standard mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), which is that the trial judge must direct a verdict if, under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict." Id. (internal citation omitted). In its analysis, the Court must accept the nonmovant's evidence and draw all inferences in the nonmovant's favor. Id. at 255. The Court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider any other materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
Plaintiff Southwest Fair Housing Council brought this action against Defendant WG Campana, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability. (Doc. 49 at 9.) Plaintiff is a non-profit organization based in Tucson, Arizona that seeks to ensure that all people, including deaf individuals, have equal access to housing in Arizona. (Id.) Plaintiff employed testers to investigate Defendant's willingness to provide auxiliary aids and services at its facilities, including American Sign Language ("ASL")1 interpreters, as part of its mission to alleviate disability discrimination in housing. (Id.)
Defendant Chandler Villas is a 164-unit residential apartment complex located in Chandler, Arizona, that provides private apartments for active seniors. (Doc. 47 at 2.) Chandler Villas provides specific amenities to its residents, the cost of which is included in rent, such as housekeeping, common dining experiences, and 24-hour staffing. (Id.) As a "supervisory care" community, Chandler Villas provides residents with limited services, which do not include health care, medical care, or complex services. (Id. at 2, 10-11, 15.) Chandler Villas does offer a medication management program which involves staff reminding a resident when to take a medication and observing the resident take the medication. (Id. at 2-3.) None of Chandler Villas' services involve direct physical contact between staff and residents. (Id.) Defendant states that all apartments and services at Chandler Villas are strictly private pay and the facility does not accept or receive any Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement for the apartments or services provided. (Id.) The community is intended for, and serves, those who are looking to live "independently" without having to cook or clean. (Id.) Chandler Villas staff members conduct "safetychecks" on residents. (Doc. 49 at 14; Doc. 50 ¶ 6.) The safety checks ensure that a resident is present and safe at the facility and include, for example, checking to make sure that a resident has not fallen in his apartment. (Doc. 50 ¶¶ 7, 8.)
On August 23, 2016, Southwest tester Gladys Beebe ("Beebe") visited Defendant's assisted living facility on behalf of her deaf grandfather, Frank, who was a fictional character created for testing purposes. (Doc. 47 at 2.) Each contact or communication between Plaintiff's testers and Defendant's employees that is at issue in this lawsuit was audio recorded. (See Doc. 48 ¶¶ 46, 54.) The facts and circumstances of Plaintiff's tester's contacts with Defendants' employee are set forth below.
During Beebe's August 23, 2016 tour with Defendant's Executive Director Kim Woda ("Woda"), Beebe discussed details about her grandfather, including that he was deaf and used ASL to communicate, that he had been living alone in Florida for years and was contemplating relocating to Arizona, that he was "pretty active," and that he took heart medication one time per day. (Doc. 47 at 2-3.) Beebe indicated that her communications with her grandfather were primarily limited to written communications such as sending cards. (Doc. 48 ¶ 58.)
During the tour, Beebe asked Woda what accommodations Defendant would provide regarding vital communications with her deaf grandfather, including medicine-related conversations. (Doc. 49 at 9.) Woda responded that staff would likely use "pen and paper" to communicate with him because no staff member had sign language abilities. (Id. at 9-10.) Beebe asked if there would be any issue with Frank being deaf and participating in the medication program, and whether staff would be able to "converse, write, whatever?" (Doc. 47 at 3.) Woda stated she did not believe it would be a problem and told Beebe that communication between Chandler Villas' staff and Beebe's grandfather would be "something that we're going to have to figure out together . . . Frank and all of us." (Doc. 48 ¶ 70.) Woda further stated that they would find Frank's "comfort zone" for communication. (Id.) Woda expressed a willingness to meet with Frank to assess his needs and whether Chandler Villas would be a good fit. (Doc. 48 ¶ 68.) Woda stated that she had used lip-reading in the past to communicate with deaf individuals. (Doc. 49 at 13.)
During the August 23, 2016 tour, Woda told Beebe that Chandler Villas staff would knock on a deaf resident's door to conduct a safety check. (Doc. 50 ¶ 18.) Additionally, Woda stated that Frank would have to pay for and install his own auxiliary device, a doorbell with a flashing light, to know when someone was present at his door. (Id. ¶ 17.) Woda further stated that a special phone could be installed so that staff could check on him if he did not come down for a meal, and that all residents have a life alert button they can use in case of an emergency. (Doc. 48 ¶ 66.)
Defendant moves for summary judgment on three grounds. (Doc. 47.) First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff sustained no injury in fact and thus lacks standing to bring its claims. (Id. at 5.) Second, Defendant argues that it receives no federal funding, and thus is not covered by the Rehabilitation Act or the ACA. (Id. at 7.) Third, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence of discrimination under the FHA, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ACA. (Id. at 8.) In support of its final argument, Defendant argues that (1) Beebe never requested an ASL interpreter for her grandfather and Defendant never refused to provide one; (2) the evidence shows that no interpreter was necessary to achieve effective communication for Chandler Villa residents; (3) Defendant satisfied its duty to provide reasonable accommodations by requesting to meet with Frank and stating that it would work with him to determine how to meet his needs; (4) under the circumstances present here, Defendant satisfied its duty to provide reasonable accommodations by offering written notes as a means of communication. (Id. at 8-14.)
Plaintiff separately moves for summary judgment on each of its four claims. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant summary judgment on its ADA claim because Defendant failed to make reasonable and necessary modifications or...
To continue reading
Request your trial