## Facts

- Edward Rose & Sons and related entities developed 19 similarly designed multifamily apartment buildings in Michigan and Ohio.
- Each ground-floor unit had two exterior entrances:
  - A front door nearest the parking area, reached by descending stairs to a shared landing serving two units.
  - A rear patio door on an accessible route but farther from parking and less direct for residents and visitors.
- The United States alleged the front stairway/landing and front doors were “public use and common use portions” that had to be “readily accessible to and usable by” persons with disabilities under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(i) and HUD regulations.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction halting construction/occupancy of noncompliant buildings, finding the front entrance functioned as the primary entrance for residents and guests and was covered by the FHA’s accessibility requirements.
- Defendants (developer and design professionals) appealed the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the front stairway, shared landing, and front doors serving ground-floor units are “public use and common use portions” under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(i) and HUD’s implementing regulations.
2. Whether providing an accessible rear entrance satisfies the FHA when a nearer, likely-used front entrance remains inaccessible.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction based on its statutory interpretation and the preliminary-injunction factors.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the front stairway, shared landing, and front doors were public/common use portions because they were made available for residents and their guests and served more than one unit.
- The court rejected the argument that one accessible entrance (the rear door) mooted obligations to make the front approach/entrance accessible when it functions as a common/public use area.
- The court concluded the United States showed at least a reasonable probability of success on the merits and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(i), public use and common use portions of covered multifamily dwellings must be designed and constructed to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.
- Entrances, approaches, stairways, and shared landings that are made available for residents and their guests, or serve multiple units, may qualify as public/common use portions subject to accessibility requirements.
- Compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C)(iii) (features within individual dwellings, including an accessible route into and through a dwelling) does not eliminate independent duties under § 3604(f)(3)(C)(i).
- In FHA enforcement actions, construction of allegedly noncompliant housing can support findings of irreparable harm and public interest favoring injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld an injunction requiring accessibility for the front stair-and-landing entrance system because it functioned as a common/public use portion of the buildings; an accessible rear door did not excuse an inaccessible front approach and entrance under the FHA’s design-and-construction rules.


United States v. Edward Rose & Sons, 384 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2004)