## Facts

- A landlord participating in the federally funded Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program (administered locally by a housing agency) rented an apartment to Eleanor Penfield, a 77-year-old tenant.
- The landlord brought a summary process action seeking possession, alleging Penfield damaged the premises in violation of a lease clause prohibiting defacement or damage.
- The Housing Court judge found Penfield had a serious mental disability involving auditory hallucinations and that, in response, she struck walls with objects and sometimes threw objects or water at the walls.
- The conduct caused nicks and gouges to walls/ceilings/door casings, water stains, and carpet soiling; estimated repair cost was $519, which the judge characterized as superficial.
- The judge found the landlord’s program contract permitted reimbursement up to two months’ contract rent for tenant-caused damage and that the estimated repair cost was less than one month’s rent.
- The judge found no substantial evidence that Penfield violated the lease’s noise/disturbance provision.
- Penfield asserted an affirmative defense under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, contending the landlord was required to reasonably accommodate her disability by allowing her to remain while pursuing mental-health treatment.
- The Housing Court ruled for Penfield and denied possession; the Supreme Judicial Court took the appeal on its own initiative.

## Issues

1. Whether a tenant in federally subsidized housing may assert § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as an affirmative defense in a landlord’s eviction (summary process) action.
2. Whether seeking eviction for a disability-related lease violation, without reasonable accommodation, constitutes discrimination “solely by reason of” disability under § 504 in the circumstances presented.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Housing Court judgment.
- The court held § 504 applied because the tenancy was part of a federally assisted housing program, and the tenant could raise § 504 as a defense in the eviction proceeding.
- The court upheld the finding that the landlord’s pursuit of eviction, rather than accommodating disability-related conduct through continued tenancy while the tenant pursued treatment, violated § 504.
- The landlord was not entitled to possession.

## Legal Principles

- Section 504 prohibits disability-based exclusion or discrimination in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, including federally assisted housing arrangements.
- A disabled tenant may assert a landlord’s § 504 violation as an affirmative defense to eviction in summary process.
- A tenant remains “otherwise qualified” to continue participation in federally assisted housing if reasonable accommodation would permit compliance or continued occupancy without undue burden or substantial interference with others.
- When a lease violation is directly linked to a mental disability, and the landlord can be compensated for resulting property damage through available reimbursement mechanisms, denial of a reasonable accommodation and insistence on eviction may constitute discrimination “solely by reason of” disability.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of possession, holding that a landlord participating in a federally assisted Section 8 program is subject to § 504 and that a tenant may defeat eviction by showing the landlord refused a reasonable accommodation for disability-related lease violations where the burden on the landlord is limited and compensable.


City Wide Assocs. v. Penfield, 409 Mass. 140, 564 N.E.2d 1003 (1991)