## Facts

- Keys Youth Services, Inc., a Kansas nonprofit operating youth group homes, bought a single-family residence in Olathe, Kansas, to house ten troubled adolescent males with staff supervision.
- The property was in a single-family residential zoning district.
- The zoning code defined “family” to include up to eight handicapped persons living as a single housekeeping unit plus up to two house parents/guardians; Keys’ proposed occupancy exceeded that limit.
- Keys applied for a special-use permit to operate the group home.
- Neighbors opposed the permit at public hearings, asserting increased crime and safety risks to neighborhood children and reduced property values.
- Keys presented information about its operations and data disputing claims of increased crime or reduced property values.
- The Planning Commission recommended denial, and the City Council denied the special-use permit.
- Keys sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) alleging discrimination because of familial status and handicap, and asserted Kansas state-law claims challenging the permit denial.
- The district court granted Keys summary judgment on the FHA familial-status claim, granted the City summary judgment on the FHA handicap claim, and after a bench trial rejected remaining handicap and state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether denying the special-use permit constituted discrimination “because of familial status” under 42 U.S.C. § 3604.
2. Whether the denial constituted discrimination “because of handicap,” including disparate treatment or failure to make a reasonable accommodation, under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f).
3. Whether the permit denial violated Kansas law governing municipal zoning decisions.

## Decision

- The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for Keys on the FHA familial-status claim.
- The court held the record did not establish as a matter of law that the City denied the permit because of familial status; competing inferences created, at most, a fact question.
- The court affirmed judgment for the City on the FHA handicap claim, finding insufficient proof of discrimination because of handicap and insufficient proof that the requested increase in residents was necessary as a reasonable accommodation.
- The court affirmed rejection of all Kansas state-law claims, finding no reversible error in the district court’s determinations after trial.

## Legal Principles

- FHA familial-status discrimination generally concerns differential treatment of households with children versus those without; a zoning rule framed as a numerical occupancy/use limitation is not facially familial-status discrimination merely because it affects a proposed youth group home.
- On summary judgment, a plaintiff must show the evidence compels the inference that the challenged decision was made “because of” a protected characteristic; mixed evidence of motives can preclude judgment as a matter of law for the plaintiff.
- A zoning scheme that permits certain group homes within single-family zones up to a defined occupancy level and requires special approval above that level can support a finding that denial was based on size/intensity rather than disability.
- Under § 3604(f), a reasonable-accommodation claim requires a showing that the requested exception to a rule is necessary to afford handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; preference or program convenience is insufficient.
- Appellate review of state-law zoning challenges after a bench trial is limited; absent clear error or legal misapplication, trial-court findings supporting municipal land-use discretion are affirmed.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit set aside Keys’ only federal victory by reversing summary judgment on familial-status discrimination, and it left intact rulings that the City’s denial of a special-use permit for a ten-resident youth group home did not violate the FHA’s handicap provisions or Kansas zoning law.


Keys Youth Servs., Inc. v. City of Olathe, 248 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2001)