## Facts

- Mesline Louis, on behalf of herself and her minor children, participated in NYCHA’s Section 8 tenant-based voucher program.
- Louis and at least one child had serious disabilities requiring in-home medical equipment, making disability-suitable housing difficult to obtain.
- After a forcible eviction from a prior apartment, the family lacked stable housing for nearly four years.
- Louis repeatedly sought NYCHA’s assistance to obtain disability-appropriate housing and emergency accommodations.
- NYCHA allegedly responded primarily by issuing and reissuing vouchers without providing additional, disability-tailored help to locate an accessible unit.
- Plaintiffs alleged NYCHA’s conduct denied them meaningful access to the Section 8 program and reflected a refusal to provide reasonable accommodations under Title II of the ADA.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that NYCHA, as a public entity administering a tenant-based Section 8 voucher program, denied plaintiffs the benefits of the program “by reason of” disability in violation of Title II of the ADA.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged a failure to provide reasonable accommodations, as opposed to requesting measures that would fundamentally alter the nature of the Section 8 tenant-based program.
3. After dismissal of the federal ADA claims, whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims or remand them.

## Decision

- The court granted NYCHA’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the Title II ADA claims for failure to state a claim.
- The court held that the allegations did not show denial of meaningful access to the Section 8 program where plaintiffs received vouchers and remained enrolled.
- The court concluded that the requested relief effectively sought to convert a voucher-administering agency into a provider or guarantor of specific accessible housing, which would fundamentally alter the program and was not a reasonable modification.
- The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and remanded those claims to state court.

## Legal Principles

- Title II bars a public entity from excluding a qualified individual with a disability from participation in, or denying the benefits of, the entity’s services, programs, or activities because of disability.
- A Title II plaintiff must plausibly allege disability-based denial of benefits or meaningful access, or a failure to make reasonable modifications necessary to avoid discrimination.
- A requested modification is not “reasonable” if it would fundamentally alter the nature of the relevant program or service.
- In a tenant-based Section 8 voucher program, participants are responsible for locating units in the private market; administering agencies provide vouchers, approve eligible units, and make subsidy payments, but are not required by Title II to guarantee procurement of a specific accessible unit.
- When all federal claims are dismissed early in the case, a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed plaintiffs’ Title II ADA claims because the pleaded facts showed access to the Section 8 voucher program through issued vouchers, while the additional assistance sought would have shifted core responsibility for locating and securing accessible units to NYCHA and thus required a fundamental alteration of the tenant-based program; the court remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court.


Louis v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 152 F. Supp. 3d 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)