## Facts

- Three low-income applicants with physical and/or mental disabilities applied for public housing administered by the Rochester Housing Authority (RHA).
- RHA used an “independent living” eligibility requirement, defined as ability to perform “basic functions of adult living” (e.g., understanding contracts, housekeeping and personal hygiene, and meeting safety standards).
- RHA processed applications through a questionnaire and a home visit; if concerns arose about “independent living,” RHA conducted further investigation, including review of confidential medical information and detailed questioning about disabilities, hygiene, and life skills.
- The named plaintiffs’ applications were denied based on RHA’s determination that they could not live independently; one denial letter cited mobility limits, incontinence, wheelchair use, and a need for substantial daily assistance.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief (and class certification), alleging that RHA’s policy and practices imposed a more burdensome disability-focused standard than that applied to nondisabled applicants, in violation of federal anti-discrimination law.

## Issues

1. Whether RHA’s “independent living” eligibility criterion and associated screening procedures discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether a public housing authority may apply eligibility standards that tend to screen out persons with disabilities based on safety or paternalistic “best interests” rationales.
3. Whether declaratory and injunctive relief should issue invalidating the “independent living” requirement and prohibiting related disability-focused screening practices.

## Decision

- The court held that RHA’s “independent living” eligibility criteria and related procedures violated the Fair Housing Act and § 504 because they tended to discriminate against applicants with disabilities.
- The court found the policy caused RHA to evaluate disabled applicants under a different standard than nondisabled applicants.
- The court declared the “independent living” requirement unlawful and struck it down.
- The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief requiring RHA to stop using the “independent living” standard and to bring its admissions practices into compliance with federal disability anti-discrimination requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Covered housing providers, including federally funded public housing authorities, may not use eligibility criteria that tend to discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
- Disabled applicants must be evaluated under the same objective eligibility standards applied to nondisabled applicants; disability-specific functional screening that operates as a separate hurdle is unlawful absent a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis consistent with federal requirements.
- Discrimination prohibited by the FHA and § 504 includes both intentional disparate treatment and paternalistic “benign” discrimination based on assumptions about what is “best” for persons with disabilities.
- Screening methods that rely on intrusive disability-focused inquiries and produce denials because of disability-related limitations constitute unlawful discrimination when they function to exclude otherwise eligible applicants.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated and enjoined RHA’s “independent living” admissions requirement, holding that disability-focused screening that subjects disabled applicants to a different and more burdensome standard violates the Fair Housing Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.


Cason v. Rochester Hous. Auth., 748 F. Supp. 1002 (W.D.N.Y. 1990)