## Facts

- Oxford House-C and Oxford House-W operated self-supporting, self-governing group homes for men recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction in residential neighborhoods.
- The homes were located in areas zoned for single-family dwellings.
- The city zoning code defined “single family dwelling” to include group homes with eight or fewer unrelated handicapped residents.
- City inspections found the houses exceeded the eight-person limit (approximately ten residents at Oxford House-C and twelve at Oxford House-W).
- The City cited the houses for violating the occupancy limit.
- Plaintiffs did not seek a variance or exception through local administrative procedures and instead filed a federal lawsuit.
- Plaintiffs alleged the City’s enforcement violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; the City counterclaimed for injunctive relief to enforce the eight-person rule.
- The district court enjoined the City from applying the limit to prevent the houses from operating at their existing size and denied the City’s counterclaim.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcing an eight-resident limit for unrelated handicapped residents in single-family zones violated the FHA as applied to group homes for recovering substance abusers.
2. Whether the same enforcement violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act where the City received federal funds.
3. Whether plaintiffs could establish a failure-to-accommodate claim without first requesting a variance or other individualized exception.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and injunction.
- The court held the City acted lawfully in enforcing the eight-person limit against the two Oxford Houses.
- The court concluded the City did not violate the FHA or the Rehabilitation Act on this record.
- The injunction was vacated, and the City’s enforcement position was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning ordinance that permits group homes for disabled persons in single-family districts up to a fixed size may be enforced without violating the FHA, absent proof of unlawful disparate treatment, unlawful disparate impact, or an unreasonable refusal to accommodate.
- A failure-to-accommodate claim generally requires evidence that an accommodation was requested and refused; bypassing available local variance or exception procedures can defeat proof of refusal.
- Under § 504, enforcement of a neutral occupancy limitation does not constitute discrimination “solely by reason of” disability where the scheme already permits disabled group homes within defined limits and no refused accommodation is shown.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that St. Louis could enforce its zoning code’s eight-resident limit for unrelated handicapped occupants against two recovery group homes because plaintiffs did not show unlawful discrimination or a refused reasonable accommodation under the FHA or § 504.


Oxford House-C v. City of St. Louis, 77 F.3d 249 (8th Cir. 1996)