## Facts

- Marbrunak, Inc., a nonprofit formed by parents of four adult women with developmental disabilities, sought to establish a “family consortium” home in a single-family residential area in Stow, Ohio.
- Ohio’s “family consortium” program encouraged family-like homes for persons with developmental disabilities, and such a home did not require a state license.
- The City of Stow amended its zoning code to impose additional “safety” requirements on single-family homes occupied by people with developmental disabilities; comparable single-family homes with nondisabled occupants were not subject to these requirements.
- The ordinance’s requirements were triggered by the residents’ disability status rather than objective features of the dwelling or individualized risk, and included heightened fire-safety and staffing-related conditions.
- Stow required Marbrunak’s proposed home to comply with the ordinance’s special conditions; Marbrunak sued under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA), alleging disability-based housing discrimination.
- On stipulated facts, the district court permanently enjoined enforcement of the special requirements against Marbrunak’s home but denied Marbrunak attorney’s fees.
- Stow appealed the injunction, and Marbrunak cross-appealed the denial of attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether a zoning ordinance that imposes additional safety requirements on homes for persons with developmental disabilities, but not on comparable single-family homes for nondisabled residents, constitutes discrimination prohibited by the FHAA.
2. Whether asserted safety concerns and the FHAA’s “direct threat” concept justified the ordinance’s disparate treatment of housing for persons with developmental disabilities.
3. Whether the prevailing FHAA plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees, and whether denial of fees was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of Stow’s special safety provisions against Marbrunak’s home.
- The court held the ordinance was facially discriminatory under the FHAA because it imposed differential burdens on housing based solely on the residents’ developmental disabilities.
- The court rejected the City’s safety justification, finding no demonstrated, evidence-based need for disparate requirements and no showing of a qualifying “direct threat” warranting such treatment.
- The court affirmed the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees, holding there was no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- The FHAA prohibits discrimination “because of a handicap” not only through denial of housing, but also through unequal “terms, conditions, or privileges” and unequal “services or facilities” associated with housing.
- A municipality violates the FHAA when it subjects housing for disabled residents to special zoning or regulatory burdens that are not imposed on similarly situated housing for nondisabled residents, where the distinction rests on disability status rather than legitimate, neutral land-use criteria.
- Safety-based defenses under the FHAA must rest on concrete, specific risk; generalized assumptions or paternalistic judgments about persons with disabilities do not justify disparate treatment.
- The FHAA’s “direct threat” concept requires a demonstrable threat tied to actual risk; blanket rules applied to all disabled residents without individualized support do not satisfy that standard.
- Attorney’s fees under the FHAA are discretionary; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Stow’s zoning ordinance unlawfully discriminated under the FHAA by imposing disability-triggered safety requirements on a single-family home for persons with developmental disabilities without a substantiated, individualized safety basis, affirmed an injunction against enforcement, and upheld the denial of attorney’s fees.


Marbrunak, Inc. v. City of Stow, 974 F.2d 43 (6th Cir. 1992)