## Facts

- Rise, Inc. (Rise) is a nonprofit corporation that operates residential group homes for individuals with developmental disabilities.
- Rise purchased a house in Malheur County, Oregon, intending to open a new group home, and began preparing the property by making repairs, hiring staff, obtaining furnishings, and selecting initial residents.
- The house was located in an exclusive farm-use (EFU) zoning area.
- Before opening, Malheur County informed Rise that operating the home in the EFU zone required a conditional-use permit (CUP).
- Rise applied for a CUP, and the Malheur County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application.
- At the hearing, local residents voiced concerns about the proposed home, including safety, property values, and alleged incompatibility with nearby farm operations.
- The Planning Commission requested additional information and continued the hearing, including asking Rise for a traffic analysis.
- Rise submitted an amended CUP application but did not provide a traffic analysis, asserting that a study would not be useful; the amended submission instead addressed community concerns and explained the need for the facility.
- After deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously made a preliminary decision to deny the CUP, citing incompatibility with surrounding farm uses and traffic patterns, and later issued a written final decision denying the application.
- Rise pursued an administrative appeal to the Malheur County Commission, asserting the denial reflected discrimination against people with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Rise then litigated in federal court, and both sides moved for summary judgment on Rise’s FHAA and ADA claims.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, Malheur County was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Rise’s claims that the CUP process and denial violated the FHAA and the ADA (including theories of disability-based discrimination and failure to make a reasonable accommodation).
2. Whether Rise was entitled to summary judgment establishing that the County’s actions violated the FHAA and/or ADA.

## Decision

- The court denied Rise’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted Malheur County’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
- As a result, some FHAA/ADA theories were resolved as a matter of law, while other claims (turning on disputed facts about the County’s reasons and its handling of disability-related requests) remained for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The FHAA and ADA can apply to local land-use and permitting decisions affecting housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.
- A plaintiff may proceed under multiple FHAA/ADA theories, including intentional discrimination and failure to make a reasonable accommodation, depending on the record.
- Government liability may turn on whether stated land-use reasons (such as traffic and compatibility with existing uses) are the actual basis for the decision or a pretext masking disability-based bias.
- In a reasonable-accommodation claim, the plaintiff generally must show a disability-related need for an exception or modification and that the accommodation is reasonable in light of the governmental program and asserted burdens.

## Conclusion

In this summary-judgment decision, the court rejected Rise’s attempt to win as a matter of law but also declined to dispose of the case entirely in the County’s favor, holding that the record supported judgment for the County on some claims while leaving others to be decided based on disputed facts about the reasons for the CUP denial and the County’s response to disability-related accommodation concerns.


Rise, Inc. v. Malheur County, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44994 (2012)