## Facts

- Rehabilitation Support Services, Inc. (RSS), a nonprofit provider of residential services, sought to establish a residence for 24 individuals recovering from alcohol and substance abuse in the City of Albany, New York.
- The proposed site was located in a residential zoning district under the City’s zoning ordinance.
- In that district, the ordinance allowed single- and two-family dwellings (and certain limited uses, including houses of worship) as of right.
- The ordinance allowed certain multi-unit or institutional residential uses (such as dormitories and nursing homes) in the district if the applicant obtained a special-use permit.
- RSS alleged that its proposed “community residence” for individuals in recovery was not eligible for the special-use permit pathway and instead was required to seek a use variance.
- Under the City’s ordinance, obtaining a use variance required the applicant to show “unnecessary hardship,” a higher bar than the criteria for a special-use permit.
- RSS applied to the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance, and the application was denied.
- RSS filed suit in federal district court alleging that the zoning ordinance (and its application to RSS) violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by imposing stricter requirements on housing for people with disabilities than on other comparable residential facilities.

## Issues

1. Whether RSS plausibly stated FHA and ADA discrimination claims by alleging that Albany’s ordinance subjected community residences for people with disabilities to a more burdensome use-variance process than other multi-unit residential uses allowed by special-use permit.
2. Whether RSS plausibly stated an FHA disparate-impact claim based on the alleged effect of requiring “unnecessary hardship” showings for disability-related community residences.
3. Whether RSS plausibly stated an FHA/ADA reasonable-accommodation (reasonable-modification) claim based on the City’s refusal to relax or modify the zoning pathway that required a use variance.
4. Whether RSS adequately alleged that the intended residents—individuals in recovery from alcohol and substance abuse—qualified as persons with disabilities protected by the FHA and ADA at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard and treated RSS’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.
- The court held that RSS plausibly alleged that the ordinance imposed a stricter approval mechanism on the proposed community residence than on other multi-unit residential uses in the same zoning district.
- The court concluded that, at the pleading stage, RSS’s allegations were sufficient to allow its FHA and ADA claims—including theories of discrimination, disparate impact, and reasonable accommodation—to proceed.
- The City’s motion to dismiss was denied at least as to the central FHA/ADA zoning-discrimination claims, and the case was permitted to move forward.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court evaluates whether the complaint plausibly alleges entitlement to relief, assuming the truth of well-pleaded facts and drawing reasonable inferences for the plaintiff.
- Municipal zoning decisions and zoning ordinances are subject to the FHA and ADA; local land-use authority does not exempt a municipality from federal disability-discrimination limits.
- A plaintiff may state a disability-based discrimination claim by alleging that housing for persons with disabilities is treated less favorably than comparable non-disability-related residential uses through more demanding approval standards.
- A disparate-impact claim may be stated by alleging that a facially neutral zoning rule falls more heavily on persons with disabilities and makes disability-related housing meaningfully harder to site.
- Reasonable accommodation under the FHA/ADA can require modification of neutral zoning rules when necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal chance to obtain housing, provided the requested change is reasonable.
- Individuals in recovery from substance abuse may qualify as protected persons with disabilities under the FHA and ADA when they are not currently engaged in illegal drug use and the condition is alleged to substantially limit major life activities.

## Conclusion

In this 2015 decision, the Northern District of New York held that RSS’s complaint plausibly alleged that Albany’s zoning ordinance imposed a more demanding use-variance “unnecessary hardship” standard on a community residence for people in recovery than on other comparable multi-unit residential facilities allowed by special-use permit, and the court therefore denied the City’s motion to dismiss the core FHA and ADA claims at the pleading stage.


Rehabilitation Support Services v. City of Albany, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86081 (2015)