## Facts

- East Coast Solutions, Inc. operated the SEARISE substance-abuse recovery program using apartments at Forest Hills Apartment Homes in Wilmington, North Carolina.
- UDR, Inc. and related entities owned or managed Forest Hills; individual defendants were property and district managers in their official capacities.
- Robin M. Evans, an applicant seeking to participate in SEARISE, had mental disabilities and a history of substance abuse in recovery and applied to rent an apartment at Forest Hills.
- Evans disclosed a prior assault conviction on her rental application; defendants later conceded she accurately completed the form.
- Defendants denied Evans’s application under a facially neutral criminal-history screening policy that disqualified applicants with certain convictions.
- East Coast requested an accommodation for Evans: an exception to the criminal-history policy based on Evans’s disability and participation in a structured recovery program, with evidence suggesting the criminal conduct was related to her conditions.
- Defendants refused to modify the policy and maintained the denial.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), alleging disability discrimination and failure to make a reasonable accommodation; after discovery, plaintiffs dismissed claims for injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; a magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and the district court reviewed the recommendation de novo.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that defendants denied Evans housing because of disability in violation of the FHA.
2. Whether the FHA required defendants to reasonably accommodate Evans by waiving or modifying a neutral criminal-history policy to allow her to rent.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ FHA claims.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that the denial was motivated by disability or that defendants’ stated reason—Evans’s assault conviction under a neutral policy—was pretextual.
- The court held plaintiffs also failed to show the requested exception to the criminal-history policy was a necessary and reasonable accommodation required by the FHA on this record.
- The court noted defendants were mistaken in claiming Evans failed to disclose criminal history, but the correction did not create a triable issue on discrimination or accommodation.

## Legal Principles

- FHA disability disparate-treatment claims may be evaluated under a burden-shifting framework: plaintiff must show denial “because of” disability; defendant may offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason; plaintiff must then show pretext.
- A facially neutral criminal-history screening policy can constitute a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying housing absent evidence of discriminatory motivation, inconsistent application, or other proof of pretext.
- The FHA requires reasonable accommodations in rules or policies when necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- The reasonable-accommodation duty is fact-specific; a housing provider is not required to disregard criminal-history information merely because the criminal conduct is related to a disability, absent proof that the requested modification is necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the housing provider, concluding that denial of an application under a neutral criminal-history policy was not shown to be disability-based discrimination and that the requested waiver of the policy was not established as a necessary, reasonable accommodation under the FHA on the evidentiary record.


Evans v. UDR, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 675 (E.D.N.C. 2009)