## Facts

- Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. (WCS), a nonprofit mental-health provider, operated an outpatient clinic in Milwaukee serving people with severe mental illness; many clients also had substance-abuse histories and criminal-justice involvement.
- WCS’s existing clinic became overcrowded, including treatment space and parking, as staffing and patient volume grew.
- WCS sought to relocate about one mile west to a larger building located in a local business zoning district.
- Under the city zoning code, a health clinic was permitted in that district only by special-use approval based on criteria including public health and welfare, traffic and pedestrian safety, property protection, and consistency with planning goals.
- City staff recommended denial, asserting the clinic could impede commercial revitalization and harm property values.
- After a public hearing featuring neighborhood concerns about the clinic’s clientele and area development, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) denied the special-use request.
- WCS contended its patients were individuals with disabilities (stipulated) and argued it was entitled to the permit as a reasonable accommodation under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- The district court remanded to BOZA to consider the ADA/Rehabilitation Act accommodation argument explicitly.
- On remand, BOZA again denied the permit after a second hearing where an alderman and neighbors again raised objections, including preference for a tax-paying commercial use.

## Issues

1. Whether a nonprofit provider serving disabled individuals may sue a municipality under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act based on an adverse zoning-permit decision affecting its disabled clients.
2. Whether municipal zoning decisions are covered “services, programs, or activities” under Title II and § 504 and may require reasonable modification of zoning processes or criteria.
3. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, denial of WCS’s special-use permit amounted to unlawful discrimination or a failure to provide a required reasonable accommodation.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit (en banc) held that entities providing services to disabled individuals may bring Title II and § 504 claims when the challenged municipal action effectively burdens or excludes the disabled persons served.
- The court held that municipal zoning and land-use decisions fall within Title II and § 504 and may trigger a duty to make reasonable modifications when necessary to avoid disability-based discrimination, absent fundamental alteration.
- The court reversed the district court’s partial summary judgment for WCS because the record did not establish as a matter of law that granting this specific permit was a necessary and reasonable accommodation.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; service providers may sue when municipal action against the provider functions as discrimination against the disabled individuals served.
- Municipal zoning and land-use permitting can be subject to Title II and § 504.
- A public entity must make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid disability-based discrimination, unless the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the service or program.
- Failure to provide a reasonable accommodation can constitute discrimination without separate proof of animus.
- A requested zoning accommodation must be shown to be both necessary to afford meaningful access and reasonable in light of legitimate governmental zoning and planning interests; the statutes do not guarantee an applicant its preferred site or arrangement.
- Reasonable-accommodation determinations in zoning settings are fact-dependent; summary judgment is improper where disputes remain about necessity, reasonableness, available alternatives, and whether asserted zoning concerns reflect legitimate objectives or discriminatory assumptions.

## Conclusion

The en banc court confirmed that Title II and § 504 can apply to municipal zoning decisions and that service providers may sue when zoning actions burden disabled clients, but it held WCS was not entitled on summary judgment to a court-ordered permit because factual questions remained regarding whether granting that permit was a necessary and reasonable accommodation.


Wisconsin Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2006) (en banc)