## Facts

- Evelyn Douglas, a low-income tenant receiving SSI and eligible for Section 8 assistance, rented an apartment managed by Kriegsfeld Corporation.
- The apartment was found in severely unsanitary condition, including pervasive foul odors, human waste in the toilet, and extensive garbage and rotting food.
- The landlord served Douglas with a 30-day notice to cure or quit based on failure to keep the unit clean and sanitary and later filed an action for possession when the conditions persisted.
- The landlord’s representative referred Douglas for a psychiatric evaluation, indicating awareness that the conditions could relate to a mental impairment.
- Douglas asserted that a mood disorder/mental impairment contributed to her inability to maintain the apartment.
- Through counsel, Douglas sought a reasonable accommodation: a stay or delay of eviction proceedings long enough for District-related services to help clean the apartment and assist her in maintaining it.
- The landlord did not provide the requested accommodation, and the trial court rejected the accommodation defense and awarded possession to the landlord.

## Issues

1. Whether a tenant may assert a Fair Housing Act (and parallel D.C. law) reasonable-accommodation defense in an eviction/possession action based on conduct allegedly linked to the tenant’s disability.
2. Whether Douglas’s communications through counsel constituted a legally cognizable request for reasonable accommodation that should have been submitted for fact-finding rather than rejected as a matter of law.
3. Whether the trial court applied the correct FHA standards in ruling on the requested accommodation in light of serious health and safety concerns.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals (en banc) reversed the judgment for the landlord and remanded.
- The court held the trial court erred by denying Douglas the opportunity to present and have adjudicated a reasonable-accommodation defense under the FHA and parallel D.C. law.
- The court held the evidence could support a finding that Douglas made a sufficient request for accommodation (including a short stay to allow government-assisted remediation).
- The court did not decide that the landlord violated the FHA or that the requested accommodation was reasonable as a matter of law; it required proper fact-finding under correct legal standards.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA prohibits refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- A reasonable-accommodation defense may be raised in an eviction when the alleged lease-violating conduct is connected to the tenant’s disability.
- A tenant must show: (1) a qualifying disability, (2) a request for an accommodation linked to the disability that may be necessary for equal housing opportunity, and (3) an accommodation that is reasonable (i.e., not an undue financial/administrative burden and not a fundamental alteration).
- An accommodation request need not use technical statutory language and may be made through counsel; it must be assessed in context, including the landlord’s knowledge of the tenant’s condition and the problem prompting enforcement.
- Serious health and safety concerns do not eliminate the obligation to consider proposed accommodations; courts must conduct an individualized assessment of whether a proposed accommodation would adequately address risks without undue burden.

## Conclusion

The en banc court held that eviction proceedings must allow a tenant to litigate an FHA-based reasonable-accommodation defense when there is evidence of disability-related conduct and a potentially workable accommodation request, and it required remand for fact-finding under proper FHA standards rather than summary rejection of the defense.


Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (D.C. 2005)