## Facts

- Potomac Group Home Corporation operated community-based residential group homes for elderly residents in Montgomery County, including a home known as Golden Guardian.
- Two residents of Golden Guardian, Betty Neuhaus and Ruth Stokoe, became unable to evacuate the home without assistance due to physical limitations.
- County law defined an “exceptional person” eligible for such a group home as a disabled person who could independently exit the home in an emergency, and the County used this definition to challenge the residents’ continued placement.
- Although group homes for disabled elderly were permitted in residential zones, the County imposed licensing conditions not applied to other residential uses, including mandatory neighbor notification and review procedures that incorporated neighbor input.
- Potomac and the residents sued the County, its health department, and individual officials, alleging discrimination and retaliation, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the County’s “exceptional person” definition, including an independent-evacuation requirement, unlawfully discriminated against persons with disabilities under the FHAA and, as applied to the residents, under Title II of the ADA.
2. Whether the County’s neighbor-notification and program-review requirements, applied specifically to group homes for persons with disabilities, were discriminatory under the FHAA.
3. Whether post-suit enforcement actions and license-related threats constituted unlawful retaliation or interference under the FHAA.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs summary judgment in substantial part and denied the County’s cross-motion on the central merits issues.
- The court held the “exceptional person” definition’s ambulatory/self-evacuation requirement unlawful under the FHAA and, as applied to the resident plaintiffs, unlawful under Title II of the ADA.
- The court held the neighbor-notification and related review procedures discriminatory under the FHAA because they imposed special burdens on housing for persons with disabilities.
- The court found liability for FHAA retaliation/interference based on the County’s post-filing conduct directed at Potomac and its residents.
- The court awarded declaratory and injunctive relief and reserved remaining remedial and damages matters for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The FHAA forbids policies or practices that make housing unavailable to persons with disabilities or impose discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges on disability-related housing.
- A local government violates the FHAA by singling out group homes for persons with disabilities for special notice, scrutiny, delay, or burdens not imposed on comparable residential uses.
- Blanket eligibility rules that categorically exclude a class of disabled persons from community-based housing can violate the FHAA, particularly where safety justifications are outdated or can be addressed through less restrictive means.
- Under Title II of the ADA, a public entity’s licensing regime can be a covered service, program, or activity; “qualification standards” that screen out disabled individuals are unlawful absent a sufficient showing that exclusion is necessary and that reasonable modifications are unavailable.
- The FHAA prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference against persons for asserting fair-housing rights; adverse enforcement actions taken because of protected activity can constitute retaliation.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated county licensing and operational rules that treated disability group homes differently from other residences, concluding that an ambulatory-only resident standard and special neighbor notice/review violated the FHAA and ADA, and that retaliatory post-suit enforcement conduct independently violated the FHAA.


Potomac Grp. Home Corp. v. Montgomery Cnty., 823 F. Supp. 1285 (D. Md. 1993)