## Facts

- Cinnamon Hills operated a residential treatment facility in St. George, Utah, serving youths with mental and emotional disorders.
- Cinnamon Hills sought to expand by creating a “step-down” program in which residents would live with greater autonomy as preparation for reintegration.
- Cinnamon Hills owned the Ambassador Inn, a motel, and proposed housing step-down residents on the top floor while continuing to operate the ground floor as a public motel.
- St. George City zoning ordinances imposed siting and spacing restrictions on residential treatment centers, including requirements tending to place them in rural or outlying areas.
- Cinnamon Hills acknowledged its proposal would violate multiple zoning provisions and sought a variance.
- The City declined to grant the variance, and Cinnamon Hills sued, alleging disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the City, and Cinnamon Hills appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s denial of a zoning variance constituted intentional disability discrimination under the FHA, ADA, or Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether the City’s zoning scheme or variance denial caused an unlawful disparate impact on persons with disabilities.
3. Whether the City unlawfully failed to provide a reasonable accommodation by declining to grant the requested variance.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Saint George City.
- Cinnamon Hills failed to present triable evidence of intentional discrimination, including under a direct-evidence theory or under the McDonnell Douglas pretext framework.
- Cinnamon Hills failed to present evidence sufficient to establish disparate-impact liability.
- Cinnamon Hills failed to show the requested variance was necessary to afford equal housing opportunity or that it was a reasonable accommodation in light of the City’s zoning scheme.

## Legal Principles

- FHA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act disability-discrimination claims challenging land-use actions may proceed on theories of (1) intentional discrimination, (2) disparate impact, or (3) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.
- Zoning provisions that regulate the siting and location of a category of land use, without targeting disability status, are not direct evidence of discriminatory intent absent proof of animus.
- Under McDonnell Douglas, once a municipality articulates facially legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying a land-use request, the plaintiff must produce evidence of pretext, such as disparate treatment of similarly situated comparators or evidence of discriminatory motive.
- Disparate-impact claims require evidence that a facially neutral policy causes a significant adverse effect on a protected group and that the policy, rather than independent factors, caused the disparity.
- Reasonable-accommodation liability requires showing an accommodation is necessary to afford equal housing opportunity and reasonable in light of administrative burdens and whether it would fundamentally alter the relevant governmental program, including a zoning plan.

## Conclusion

The court held that the record supported the City’s explanation that it denied the variance to enforce its zoning scheme and address concerns about combining a residential treatment use with an operating motel, and that Cinnamon Hills offered insufficient evidence that the decision was discriminatory in intent or effect or that the requested variance was a necessary and reasonable accommodation under federal disability and fair-housing law.


Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Ctr., Inc. v. Saint George City, 685 F.3d 917 (10th Cir. 2012)