## Facts

- Phyllis Shapiro, a cooperative apartment owner at Cadman Towers in Brooklyn, had multiple sclerosis causing substantial limits on walking and self-care, severe fatigue, and urinary incontinence.
- Shapiro’s medical condition made walking longer distances—especially in cold or adverse weather—dangerous and physically exhausting, and increased the risk of falls and incontinence episodes.
- Cadman Towers operated an indoor garage with fewer spaces than residents and used a resident waiting list generally run on a “first come/first served” basis; demand at Shapiro’s building (101 Clark Street) was especially high.
- Shapiro requested an immediate ground-floor garage space close to the elevator as an accommodation for her disability, explaining that street parking and distant parking materially impaired her ability to access and enjoy her home.
- Cadman Towers refused to deviate from its parking policy to give Shapiro priority.
- Shapiro filed an administrative discrimination complaint with HUD and alleged that Cadman Towers later conditioned her placement on the building’s waiting list on withdrawing that complaint.
- Shapiro sought a preliminary injunction requiring a ground-floor space; the United States intervened and brought a parallel action asserting the same fair-housing theory, and the actions were consolidated after an evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether the FHAA’s reasonable-accommodation requirement, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f), required the cooperative to modify its neutral “first come/first served” parking policy to provide Shapiro an immediate ground-floor garage space necessary for equal use and enjoyment of her dwelling.
2. Whether conditioning access to the parking waiting list on withdrawal of a discrimination complaint constituted coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference under 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
3. Whether the prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief were satisfied, including likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and the balance of hardships and public interest.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered Cadman Towers and its board president to provide Shapiro with a ground-floor parking space in the 101 Clark Street garage.
- The court found Shapiro was a person with a handicap under the FHAA and that a nearby, secure parking space was sufficiently connected to her ability to use and enjoy her home.
- The court held Shapiro showed a substantial likelihood of success on the reasonable-accommodation claim because modifying the parking policy was necessary to provide equal housing opportunity and was reasonable given the limited burden on the cooperative.
- The court found irreparable harm from ongoing health risks and deterioration, mobility limitations, and humiliation and distress related to incontinence that could not be adequately remedied by damages.
- The court concluded the balance of hardships favored Shapiro and that the public interest supported enforcement of federal fair-housing protections; the § 3617 allegations further supported the likelihood-of-success analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B), discrimination includes refusing reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when necessary to afford a person with a handicap equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
- “Use and enjoyment” may include access to and use of building-related facilities and services, including parking, when denial of access materially impairs a disabled resident’s ability to live in the home on equal terms.
- A housing provider may be required to modify a facially neutral policy (including “first come/first served” allocation rules) when strict application would effectively deny equal housing opportunity to a person with a disability.
- Reasonableness turns on whether the requested accommodation imposes an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alters the provider’s operations, weighed against the disability-related need.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3617, it is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person’s exercise of fair-housing rights; conditioning housing-related benefits on withdrawing a discrimination complaint can constitute interference.
- Preliminary injunctions may issue where the movant demonstrates likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent relief, and that the equities and public interest favor enforcement of statutory rights.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a cooperative to provide a ground-floor garage space to a resident with multiple sclerosis, holding that the FHAA can require modification of neutral parking-allocation policies when necessary and reasonable to ensure equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, and finding irreparable harm and favorable equities at the preliminary-injunction stage.


Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 116 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)