## Facts

- Beverly Tsombanidis operated an Oxford House sober-living home in West Haven, Connecticut, housing recovering alcoholics and drug addicts in a single-family residential zone.
- Oxford House homes are self-run group residences without on-site professional staff; residents must remain sober and share rent and household responsibilities.
- West Haven’s zoning rules limited the number of unrelated persons who could reside together as a “family” in the single-family district; the Oxford House exceeded that limit and therefore did not qualify as a single-family use under the ordinance.
- The City refused to reclassify the home as a single-family dwelling or grant a special exception or variance.
- The West Haven Fire Department (First Fire District) treated the home as a use other than a single-family dwelling and cited it under more demanding fire-safety requirements.
- The owner, Oxford House, Inc., and residents sued under the FHAA and Title II of the ADA, alleging intentional discrimination, disparate impact, and failure to make a reasonable accommodation.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcement of zoning and fire-safety requirements against the Oxford House constituted intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) under the FHAA and ADA.
2. Whether the zoning and fire-safety regimes, though facially neutral, had an unlawful disparate impact on persons in recovery compared to non-disabled persons.
3. Whether the City and Fire District failed to provide a reasonable accommodation by refusing to treat the home as a single-family dwelling (or otherwise exempt it from certain requirements) when necessary to afford equal housing opportunity.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated significant portions of the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the district court applied insufficiently rigorous analysis to the disparate treatment and disparate impact claims and required more precise findings and proof on remand.
- The court directed that the reasonable-accommodation claim be reassessed under a fact-specific framework focusing on necessity to equal opportunity and the reasonableness of the requested change in light of cost, administrative burden, and safety.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FHAA and ADA, persons recovering from alcohol or drug addiction (and not currently using illegal drugs) may qualify as disabled/handicapped and are protected from housing discrimination.
- Disparate treatment requires proof of discriminatory intent or purpose; knowledge of adverse effects on a protected group, without more, is not enough.
- Disparate impact requires identification of a specific neutral policy and proof—typically with comparative or statistical evidence—showing the policy actually or predictably causes a significant disproportionate adverse effect on the protected group, with a causal connection to the challenged practice.
- Reasonable accommodation may require modifying rules or practices when necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing, unless the modification would impose an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the governmental program.
- “Necessity” in the accommodation analysis demands a showing that the requested change is needed for equal opportunity, not merely preferred; reasonableness includes considering municipal cost, administrative impact, and legitimate safety concerns, while guarding against use of safety rules as a pretext for discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required stricter evidentiary and analytical support for FHAA/ADA disparate treatment and disparate impact findings against municipal zoning and fire enforcement, and it remanded for a focused, fact-intensive determination of whether an exemption or reclassification for a sober-living group home was necessary to equal housing opportunity and reasonable in light of burdens and safety.


Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003)