## Facts

- Linda Congdon and her husband, Paul Congdon, were long-term tenants in a fourth-floor apartment in Media, Pennsylvania, owned by Walter Strine, Sr.
- After an initial one-year lease, the Congdons remained as month-to-month tenants.
- Linda Congdon had serious medical conditions and, by 1992, was largely confined to a wheelchair.
- The building elevator experienced recurring breakdowns beginning before January 1993, limiting Mrs. Congdon’s access to the fourth-floor unit and requiring stair use at times.
- The Congdons complained to state and county consumer agencies and filed a complaint with HUD alleging disability discrimination.
- Strine had an elevator maintenance contract, and the record reflected regular service and repairs, though intermittent failures continued.
- The Congdons alleged the elevator maintenance and repair practices failed to account for Mrs. Congdon’s disability and that Strine later threatened eviction or nonrenewal in retaliation for their complaints.
- Strine offered alternative housing options (including different units) intended to reduce the access problems caused by elevator outages; the Congdons found the alternatives unsuitable.

## Issues

1. Whether recurring elevator breakdowns and related landlord conduct constituted discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental, or a denial of housing, under the FHAA and PHRA.
2. Whether the landlord refused to make a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, or services necessary to afford a disabled tenant equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling.
3. Whether the landlord’s notice to vacate or nonrenewal of the month-to-month tenancy constituted unlawful retaliation for filing administrative complaints.

## Decision

- The court granted the landlord’s motion for summary judgment on all FHAA and PHRA claims.
- The court held the evidence did not show a denial of housing or discriminatory rental conditions, emphasizing that plaintiffs remained housed and the landlord offered alternative units.
- The court held the record did not support a finding that the landlord refused a reasonable accommodation, given ongoing elevator servicing/repairs and the offers of alternative housing arrangements.
- The court held the retaliation claim lacked sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable inference that any adverse action was substantially motivated by plaintiffs’ protected complaints.

## Legal Principles

- Disability discrimination under the FHAA includes refusing reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to provide equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- Recurring maintenance problems, without evidence of discriminatory intent or an unreasonable refusal to address the problem, do not by themselves establish a FHAA/PHRA violation.
- Offers of alternative housing arrangements may constitute evidence of reasonable accommodation, even if the tenant prefers to remain in the original unit.
- Retaliation claims under fair housing law require evidence supporting a causal link between protected activity (such as filing agency complaints) and a materially adverse housing action.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the landlord because the evidence showed continued repair efforts and alternative housing offers rather than a refusal to reasonably accommodate, and because plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence that any nonrenewal or vacate notice was retaliatory under the FHAA or PHRA.


Congdon v. Strine, 854 F. Supp. 355 (E.D. Pa. 1994)