## Facts

- Lincoln Realty Management Company managed Audubon Court Apartments, a 175-unit, 12-building complex.
- Tenant Sally Atkinson had multiple chemical sensitivity and presented medical evidence that she could not tolerate various chemicals, including certain pesticides and herbicides.
- Atkinson leased an apartment in Building C beginning in February 1986.
- In May 1986, Lincoln notified Atkinson it would not renew her lease because it could not provide the “special treatment and precautions” her condition required.
- Atkinson remained after the lease term ended and filed a housing discrimination complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) alleging disability-based discrimination.
- Atkinson obtained injunctive relief in state trial court restricting pest-control methods near her unit and requiring advance notice of certain chemical applications; Lincoln extended the restrictions while litigation continued.
- Atkinson proposed accommodations related to avoiding toxic paints and pesticides, notice of painting/pest control, and certain in-unit or building modifications; Lincoln suspended painting and pest control in Building C rather than implementing alternative methods, prompting resident complaints.
- After a hearing, the PHRC found Lincoln discriminated by refusing to renew the lease and by rejecting reasonable accommodations, and it ordered Lincoln to implement accommodations and alterations.

## Issues

1. Whether multiple chemical sensitivity qualified as a protected disability/handicap under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) in housing.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the PHRC finding that Lincoln refused renewal and constructively ejected Atkinson because of her disability.
3. Whether the accommodations and alterations ordered by the PHRC were reasonable and supported by record evidence of what Atkinson requested and the cost/responsibility for alterations.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the PHRC’s determination that Atkinson was protected by the PHRA and that Lincoln committed disability-based housing discrimination.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the finding that Lincoln’s nonrenewal decision was based on Atkinson’s disability-related needs.
- The court vacated and remanded parts of the PHRC’s remedial order that were not shown by the record to have been requested by Atkinson or properly supported by findings addressing reasonableness and cost allocation.
- On remand, the PHRC was directed to clarify and tailor relief to the evidentiary record and the PHRA’s reasonableness standard.

## Legal Principles

- The PHRA is construed broadly to effectuate its anti-discrimination purpose, including in housing.
- A physical condition that substantially limits major life activities, including the use and enjoyment of housing, may constitute a protected disability/handicap under the PHRA.
- Housing providers may have an affirmative duty to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled tenants and may not avoid that duty by nonrenewing a lease without showing that requested measures are unreasonable or impose undue hardship.
- PHRC fact findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence; remedial orders must be grounded in the record and may be vacated if they exceed statutory authority or lack evidentiary support.
- Administrative accommodation remedies must be tied to what was requested and proven reasonable in light of feasibility and cost; where individualized alterations are involved, responsibility for costs must be addressed on the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the PHRC’s finding that a landlord violated the PHRA by refusing to renew a lease and failing to provide reasonable disability-related accommodations, but it required the PHRC to narrow and justify the ordered accommodations based on record proof and reasonableness, remanding for clarification and a properly supported remedy.


Lincoln Realty Mgmt. Co. v. Pa. Hum. Rels. Comm'n, 143 Pa. Commw. 54, 598 A.2d 594 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991)