## Facts

- Howard Groner rented an apartment at Golden Gate Gardens Apartments in Mayfield Heights, Ohio.
- Groner suffered from schizophrenia and depression, and Golden Gate knew of his mental disabilities.
- Diane Arter lived in the apartment directly above Groner.
- Arter repeatedly complained to Golden Gate that Groner screamed and slammed doors at all hours, including late at night, disrupting her sleep.
- Golden Gate’s manager contacted Groner’s social worker, Ray Gonzalez, to report the complaints and to ask for help in addressing Groner’s behavior.
- Gonzalez told management that he was counseling Groner in an effort to change the behavior; at one point, Gonzalez suggested that Groner “scream into a pillow” to reduce the noise.
- Golden Gate served Groner with a notice to vacate after continued complaints.
- Groner requested two accommodations under the Fair Housing Act (FHA): (1) permission to remain in the apartment for 12 months while continuing counseling with Gonzalez, and (2) a practice that Golden Gate would contact Gonzalez immediately upon receiving any complaint about Groner.
- Golden Gate allowed Groner to stay for several months while Gonzalez continued counseling, and Golden Gate contacted Gonzalez multiple times after receiving additional complaints.
- Despite the counseling and ongoing contact with Gonzalez, Arter continued to complain about recurring screaming and door slamming.
- Golden Gate issued another notice to vacate when the disturbances persisted.
- Groner and Metropolitan Strategy Group (a nonprofit housing-rights organization) sued Golden Gate and related defendants, alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the FHA and Ohio fair-housing law.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, and Groner appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Golden Gate violated the FHA (and analogous Ohio law) by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for Groner’s disability-related conduct when it pursued eviction after repeated noise complaints.
2. Whether, on the undisputed record, Golden Gate’s actions in working with Groner’s social worker and allowing time for counseling satisfied the FHA’s reasonable-accommodation requirement as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held that the undisputed record showed Golden Gate took meaningful steps in response to Groner’s requests, including repeatedly contacting Gonzalez and allowing time for counseling to work.
- The FHA requires a reasonable accommodation, not an outcome-guaranteed solution, and it does not require a landlord to endure ongoing, serious disturbances to other tenants when efforts to address the problem have not resolved it.
- Because plaintiffs failed to show evidence that defendants refused a specific, workable accommodation required by the FHA, no genuine dispute of material fact precluded summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA makes it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. (42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B))
- A reasonable-accommodation claim generally requires proof that: the tenant is disabled within the meaning of the FHA; the housing provider knew or should have known of the disability; the tenant requested an accommodation connected to the disability; the accommodation was necessary and reasonable; and the provider refused the accommodation.
- Reasonableness is tied to the housing provider’s ability to operate the property and to the rights of other residents; the FHA does not require allowing substantial, continuing interference with other tenants’ quiet enjoyment.
- A provider may satisfy its duty by taking reasonable, good-faith steps to respond to an accommodation request; the statute does not require that the attempted accommodation fully eliminate disability-related conduct.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, still lacks evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the provider refused a reasonable and necessary accommodation.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Golden Gate satisfied the FHA’s reasonable-accommodation duty because it responded to Groner’s situation by repeatedly involving his social worker and allowing additional time for counseling, yet the severe disturbances continued; on that undisputed record, the landlord was not required to keep Groner indefinitely, and summary judgment for defendants was affirmed.


Groner v. Golden Gate Gardens Apartments, 250 F.3d 1039 (2001)