## Facts

- John Giebeler had AIDS, could no longer work, and relied on disability-related benefits and housing assistance.
- Seeking more affordable housing and proximity to his mother for help with daily needs, he applied to rent a one-bedroom unit at Park Branham Apartments.
- The complex used minimum financial qualifications that Giebeler could not meet because he lacked sufficient current income after becoming disabled.
- Giebeler’s mother met the income standards and offered to cosign or to rent the unit so her son could live there.
- The property enforced a categorical “no cosigners” policy and refused to rent to Giebeler or his mother under the proposed arrangement.
- Giebeler requested a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA): modify the no-cosigner policy to allow his mother’s financial backing; the request did not seek reduced rent or different payment terms.
- He sued under the FHAA for refusal to make a reasonable accommodation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the owners; Giebeler appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FHAA’s reasonable-accommodation duty can require modification of a landlord’s financial-eligibility policies, including a categorical no-cosigner rule.
2. Whether allowing a disabled applicant’s mother to cosign (or be treated as financially responsible) is “necessary” to provide an “equal opportunity” to use and enjoy housing when the applicant’s disability caused the income shortfall.
3. Whether the requested modification was “reasonable” given the landlord’s interest in reducing nonpayment risk.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the landlord and remanded.
- The court held that the FHAA may require a landlord to make a reasonable accommodation in a no-cosigner policy when a disability-related loss of income prevents meeting standard qualifications.
- The court concluded the landlord was required to consider Giebeler’s proposed financial arrangement through an individualized assessment, rather than applying an inflexible blanket rule.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), discrimination includes refusing 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.
- The FHAA’s accommodation requirement can reach financial and eligibility policies; it is not limited to structural or physical modifications.
- “Necessity” is satisfied when, because of disability-related limitations, the accommodation is required for the applicant to have an equal chance to obtain and enjoy the dwelling.
- “Reasonableness” depends on the burden and legitimacy of the requested change; a landlord may need to depart from categorical rules to evaluate actual risk in the specific proposal.
- The duty to accommodate does not eliminate all income-related criteria; the relevant circumstance is when the inability to meet the criterion is caused by the disability and the accommodation would address that barrier without requiring reduced rent or fundamentally different terms.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the FHAA can require a landlord to modify a blanket no-cosigner policy when an applicant’s disability-caused loss of income makes the modification necessary to provide equal housing opportunity and the proposed arrangement is reasonable, requiring individualized consideration rather than categorical refusal.


Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003)