## Facts

- Oxford House, Inc. operated self-run group homes for persons recovering from alcohol and drug addiction under rules requiring democratic governance, financial self-support, and immediate expulsion for drug or alcohol use.
- The Erichsons leased a house at 73 East Walnut Avenue in East Farmingdale, New York, for use as an Oxford House for men in recovery.
- The property was located in a district restricted to “single-family” residential use under the Town of Babylon’s zoning code.
- The zoning ordinance defined “family” primarily by blood, marriage, or adoption, but also permitted “functional equivalent” families based on factors including stability and nontransience.
- After neighbor objections, the Town notified the owners and Oxford House that the residence violated single-family zoning and the Town Board authorized eviction litigation.
- Oxford House requested that the Town accommodate the residence as a functional-family household, asserting that a stable, affordable, drug-free group living setting was necessary to support sobriety.
- Town officials acknowledged the home was well maintained and that there had been no substantial complaints during its operation, but the Town refused to accommodate and pursued eviction.
- The residents were treated as “handicapped” under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) due to their status as individuals recovering from addiction.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcing the single-family zoning ordinance to exclude the recovery home had an unlawful disparate impact on FHA-protected handicapped persons in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f).
2. Whether the Town’s refusal to reasonably accommodate the recovery home in applying its zoning rules denied handicapped residents an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court held the Town violated the FHA by enforcing its single-family zoning ordinance in a manner that had an unlawful disparate impact on persons in recovery.
- The court held the Town also violated the FHA by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation necessary to afford the residents an equal opportunity to live in the dwelling.
- The court concluded the residents functioned as the equivalent of a family for zoning purposes and that exclusion based on household size and alleged transience was not justified by the Town’s stated zoning objectives.
- The court enjoined the Town from evicting the residents based on the challenged application of the zoning ordinance.

## Legal Principles

- The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing against handicapped persons, including discrimination shown by unjustified discriminatory effects.
- A disparate impact violation may be established when a facially neutral housing policy disproportionately burdens handicapped persons and lacks a sufficient justification tied to legitimate governmental interests.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), discrimination includes refusing reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, or practices when necessary to afford handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- In assessing reasonable accommodation, courts consider whether the requested modification is necessary for equal opportunity and whether it is reasonable in light of legitimate zoning concerns (e.g., density, overcrowding, traffic, and neighborhood conditions).
- Group homes for persons with disabilities may qualify as the functional equivalent of a family when residents share a household, expenses, and common rules consistent with stable residential living.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Town’s effort to use single-family zoning to exclude a recovery home unlawfully discriminated under the FHA because it disproportionately burdened disabled residents and because the Town refused a reasonable, necessary accommodation that would not materially impair legitimate zoning interests.


Oxford House, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 819 F. Supp. 1179 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)