City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions et al
Filing
1
COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-12248551.). Filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet)(Herrera, Dennis) (Filed on 4/5/2018)
EXHIBIT C
JOINT STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GROUP HOMES, LOCAL LAND USE, AND THE FAIR HOUSING ACT
Since the federal Fair Housing Act ("the Act") was amended by Congress in 1988 to add
protections for persons with disabilities and families with children, there has been a great deal of
litigation concerning the Act's effect on the ability of local governments to exercise control over
group living arrangements, particularly for persons with disabilities. The Department of Justice
has taken an active part in much of this litigation, often following referral of a matter by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). This joint statement provides an
overview of the Fair Housing Act's requirements in this area. Specific topics are addressed in
more depth in the attached Questions and Answers.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits a broad range of practices that discriminate against individuals
on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.(1) The Act
does not pre-empt local zoning laws. However, the Act applies to municipalities and other local
government entities and prohibits them from making zoning or land use decisions or
implementing land use policies that exclude or otherwise discriminate against protected persons,
including individuals with disabilities.
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful -
To utilize land use policies or actions that treat groups of persons with disabilities less
favorably than groups of non-disabled persons. An example would be an ordinance
prohibiting housing for persons with disabilities or a specific type of disability, such as
mental illness, from locating in a particular area, while allowing other groups of unrelated
individuals to live together in that area.
To take action against, or deny a permit, for a home because of the disability of
individuals who live or would live there. An example would be denying a building permit
for a home because it was intended to provide housing for persons with mental
retardation.
To refuse to make reasonable accommodations in land use and zoning policies and
procedures where such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons or groups of
persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.
What constitutes a reasonable accommodation is a case-by-case determination.
Not all requested modifications of rules or policies are reasonable. If a requested
modification imposes an undue financial or administrative burden on a local government,
or if a modification creates a fundamental alteration in a local government's land use and
zoning scheme, it is not a "reasonable" accommodation.
The disability discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act do not extend to persons who
claim to be disabled solely on the basis of having been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, having
a criminal record, or being a sex offender. Furthermore, the Fair Housing Act does not protect
persons who currently use illegal drugs, persons who have been convicted of the manufacture or
sale of illegal drugs, or persons with or without disabilities who present a direct threat to the
persons or property of others.
HUD and the Department of Justice encourage parties to group home disputes to explore all
reasonable dispute resolution procedures, like mediation, as alternatives to litigation.
DATE: AUGUST 18, 1999
Questions and Answers
on the Fair Housing Act and Zoning
Q. Does the Fair Housing Act pre-empt local zoning laws?
No. "Pre-emption" is a legal term meaning that one level of government has taken over a field
and left no room for government at any other level to pass laws or exercise authorityin that area.
The Fair Housing Act is not a land use or zoning statute; it does not pre-empt local land use and
zoning laws. This is an area where state law typically gives local governments primary power.
However, if that power is exercised in a specific instance in a way that is inconsistent with a
federal law such as the Fair Housing Act, the federal law will control. Long before the 1988
amendments, the courts had held that the Fair Housing Act prohibited local governments from
exercising their land use and zoning powers in a discriminatory way.
Q. What is a group home within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act?
The term "group home" does not have a specific legal meaning. In this statement, the term
"group home" refers to housing occupied by groups of unrelated individuals with
disabilities.(2)Sometimes, but not always, housing is provided by organizations that also offer
various services for individuals with disabilities living in the group homes. Sometimes it is this
group home operator, rather than the individuals who live in the home, that interacts with local
government in seeking permits and making requests for reasonable accommodations on behalf of
those individuals.
The term "group home" is also sometimes applied to any group of unrelated persons who live
together in a dwelling -- such as a group of students who voluntarily agree to share the rent on a
house. The Act does not generally affect the ability of local governments to regulate housing of
this kind, as long as they do not discriminate against the residents on the basis of race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, handicap (disability) or familial status (families with minor
children).
Q. Who are persons with disabilities within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act?
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap. "Handicap" has the
same legal meaning as the term "disability" which is used in other federal civil rights laws.
Persons with disabilities (handicaps) are individuals with mental or physical impairments which
substantially limit one or more major life activities. The term mental or physical impairment may
include conditions such as blindness, hearing impairment, mobility impairment, HIV infection,
mental retardation, alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic fatigue, learning disability, head injury,
and mental illness. The term major life activity may include seeing, hearing, walking, breathing,
performing manual tasks, caring for one's self, learning, speaking, or working. The Fair Housing
Act also protects persons who have a record of such an impairment, or are regarded as having
such an impairment.
Current users of illegal controlled substances, persons convicted for illegal manufacture or
distribution of a controlled substance, sex offenders, and juvenile offenders, are not considered
disabled under the Fair Housing Act, by virtue of that status.
The Fair Housing Act affords no protections to individuals with or without disabilities who
present a direct threat to the persons or property of others. Determining whether someone poses
such a direct threat must be made on an individualized basis, however, and cannot be based on
general assumptions or speculation about the nature of a disability.
Q. What kinds of local zoning and land use laws relating to group homes violate the Fair
Housing Act?
Local zoning and land use laws that treat groups of unrelated persons with disabilities less
favorably than similar groups of unrelated persons without disabilities violate the Fair Housing
Act. For example, suppose a city's zoning ordinance defines a "family" to include up to six
unrelated persons living together as a household unit, and gives such a group of unrelated
persons the right to live in any zoning district without special permission. If that ordinance also
disallows a group home for six or fewer people with disabilities in a certain district or requires
this home to seek a use permit, such requirements would conflict with the Fair Housing Act. The
ordinance treats persons with disabilities worse than persons without disabilities.
A local government may generally restrict the ability of groups of unrelated persons to live
together as long as the restrictions are imposed on all such groups. Thus, in the case where a
family is defined to include up to six unrelated people, an ordinance would not, on its face,
violate the Act if a group home for seven people with disabilities was not allowed to locate in a
single family zoned neighborhood, because a group of seven unrelated people without
disabilities would also be disallowed. However, as discussed below, because persons with
disabilities are also entitled to request reasonable accommodations in rules and policies, the
group home for seven persons with disabilities would have to be given the opportunity to seek an
exception or waiver. If the criteria for reasonable accommodation are met, the permit would have
to be given in that instance, but the ordinance would not be invalid in all circumstances.
Q. What is a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act?
As a general rule, the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to refuse to make "reasonable
accommodations" (modifications or exceptions) to rules, policies, practices, or services, when
such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity
to use or enjoy a dwelling.
Even though a zoning ordinance imposes on group homes the same restrictions it imposes on
other groups of unrelated people, a local government may be required, in individual cases and
when requested to do so, to grant a reasonable accommodation to a group home for persons with
disabilities. For example, it may be a reasonable accommodation to waive a setback requirement
so that a paved path of travel can be provided to residents who have mobility impairments. A
similar waiver might not be required for a different type of group home where residents do not
have difficulty negotiating steps and do not need a setback in order to have an equal opportunity
to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Not all requested modifications of rules or policies are reasonable. Whether a particular
accommodation is reasonable depends on the facts, and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The determination of what is reasonable depends on the answers to two questions: First, does the
request impose an undue burden or expense on the local government? Second, does the proposed
use create a fundamental alteration in the zoning scheme? If the answer to either question is
"yes," the requested accommodation is unreasonable.
What is "reasonable" in one circumstance may not be "reasonable" in another. For example,
suppose a local government does not allow groups of four or more unrelated people to live
together in a single-family neighborhood. A group home for four adults with mental retardation
would very likely be able to show that it will have no more impact on parking, traffic, noise,
utility use, and other typical concerns of zoning than an "ordinary family." In this circumstance,
there would be no undue burden or expense for the local government nor would the single-family
character of the neighborhood be fundamentally altered. Granting an exception or waiver to the
group home in this circumstance does not invalidate the ordinance. The local government would
still be able to keep groups of unrelated persons without disabilities from living in single-family
neighborhoods.
By contrast, a fifty-bed nursing home would not ordinarily be considered an appropriate use in a
single-family neighborhood, for obvious reasons having nothing to do with the disabilities of its
residents. Such a facility might or might not impose significant burdens and expense on the
community, but it would likely create a fundamental change in the single-family character of the
neighborhood. On the other hand, a nursing home might not create a "fundamental change" in a
neighborhood zoned for multi-family housing. The scope and magnitude of the modification
requested, and the features of the surrounding neighborhood are among the factors that will be
taken into account in determining whether a requested accommodation is reasonable.
Q. What is the procedure for requesting a reasonable accommodation?
Where a local zoning scheme specifies procedures for seeking a departure from the general rule,
courts have decided, and the Department of Justice and HUD agree, that these procedures must
ordinarily be followed. If no procedure is specified, persons with disabilities may, nevertheless,
request a reasonable accommodation in some other way, and a local government is obligated to
grant it if it meets the criteria discussed above. A local government's failure to respond to a
request for reasonable accommodation or an inordinate delay in responding could also violate the
Act.
Whether a procedure for requesting accommodations is provided or not, if local government
officials have previously made statements or otherwise indicated that an application would not
receive fair consideration, or if the procedure itself is discriminatory, then individuals with
disabilities living in a group home (and/or its operator) might be able to go directly into court to
request an order for an accommodation.
Local governments are encouraged to provide mechanisms for requesting reasonable
accommodations that operate promptly and efficiently, without imposing significant costs or
delays. The local government should also make efforts to insure that the availability of such
mechanisms is well known within the community.
Q. When, if ever, can a local government limit the number of group homes that can locate
in a certain area?
A concern expressed by some local government officials and neighborhood residents is that
certain jurisdictions, governments, or particular neighborhoods within a jurisdiction, may come
to have more than their "fair share" of group homes. There are legal ways to address this
concern. The Fair Housing Act does not prohibit most governmental programs designed to
encourage people of a particular race to move to neighborhoods occupied predominantly by
people of another race. A local government that believes a particular area within its boundaries
has its "fair share" of group homes, could offer incentives to providers to locate future homes in
other neighborhoods.
However, some state and local governments have tried to address this concern by enacting laws
requiring that group homes be at a certain minimum distance from one another. The Department
of Justice and HUD take the position, and most courts that have addressed the issue agree, that
density restrictions are generally inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act. We also believe,
however, that if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes, that could
adversely affect individuals with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the objective of
integrating persons with disabilities into the community. Especially in the licensing and
regulatory process, it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a group home. A
consideration of over-concentration could be considered in this context. This objective does not,
however, justify requiring separations which have the effect of foreclosing group homes from
locating in entire neighborhoods.
Q. What kinds of health and safety regulations can be imposed upon group homes?
The great majority of group homes for persons with disabilities are subject to state regulations
intended to protect the health and safety of their residents. The Department of Justice and HUD
believe, as do responsible group home operators, that such licensing schemes are necessary and
legitimate. Neighbors who have concerns that a particular group home is being operated
inappropriately should be able to bring their concerns to the attention of the responsible licensing
agency. We encourage the states
to commit the resources needed to make these systems responsive to resident and community
needs and concerns.
Regulation and licensing requirements for group homes are themselves subject to scrutiny under
the Fair Housing Act. Such requirements based on health and safety concerns can be
discriminatory themselves or may be cited sometimes to disguise discriminatory motives behind
attempts to exclude group homes from a community. Regulators must also recognize that not all
individuals with disabilities living in group home settings desire or need the same level of
services or protection. For example, it may be appropriate to require heightened fire safety
measures in a group home for people who are unable to move about without assistance. But for
another group of persons with disabilities who do not desire or need such assistance, it would not
be appropriate to require fire safety measures beyond those normally imposed on the size and
type of residential building involved.
Q. Can a local government consider the feelings of neighbors in making a decision about
granting a permit to a group home to locate in a residential neighborhood?
In the same way a local government would break the law if it rejected low-income housing in a
community because of neighbors' fears that such housing would be occupied by racial minorities,
a local government can violate the Fair Housing Act if it blocks a group home or denies a
requested reasonable accommodation in response to neighbors' stereotypical fears or prejudices
about persons with disabilities. This is so even if the individual government decision-makers are
not themselves personally prejudiced against persons with disabilities. If the evidence shows that
the decision-makers were responding to the wishes of their constituents,and that the constituents
were motivated in substantial part by discriminatory concerns, that could be enough to prove a
violation.
Of course, a city council or zoning board is not bound by everything that is said by every person
who speaks out at a public hearing. It is the record as a whole that will be determinative. If the
record shows that there were valid reasons for denying an application that were not related to the
disability of the prospective residents, the courts will give little weight to isolated discriminatory
statements. If, however, the purportedly legitimate reasons advanced to support the action are not
objectively valid, the courts are likely to treat them as pretextual, and to find that there has been
discrimination.
For example, neighbors and local government officials may be legitimately concerned that a
group home for adults in certain circumstances may create more demand for on-street parking
than would a typical family. It is not a violation of the Fair Housing Act for neighbors or
officials to raise this concern and to ask the provider to respond. A valid unaddressed concern
about inadequate parking facilities could justify denying the application, if another type of
facility would ordinarily be denied a permit for such parking problems. However, if a group of
individuals with disabilities or a group home operator shows by credible and unrebutted evidence
that the home will not create a need for more parking spaces, or submits a plan to provide
whatever off-street parking may be needed, then parking concerns would not support a decision
to deny the home a permit.
Q. What is the status of group living arrangements for children under the Fair Housing
Act?
In the course of litigation addressing group homes for persons with disabilities, the issue has
arisen whether the Fair Housing Act also provides protections for group living arrangements for
children. Such living arrangements are covered by the Fair Housing Act's provisions prohibiting
discrimination against families with children. For example, a local government may not enforce
a zoning ordinance which treats group living arrangements for children less favorably than it
treats a similar group living arrangement for unrelated adults. Thus, an ordinance that defined a
group of up to six unrelated adult persons as a family, but specifically disallowed a group living
arrangement for six or fewer children, would, on its face, discriminate on the basis of familial
status. Likewise, a local government might violate the Act if it denied a permit to such a home
because neighbors did not want to have a group facility for children next to them.
The law generally recognizes that children require adult supervision. Imposing a reasonable
requirement for adequate supervision in group living facilities for children would not violate the
familial status provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
Q. How are zoning and land use matters handled by HUD and the Department of Justice?
The Fair Housing Act gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development the power to
receive and investigate complaints of discrimination, including complaints that a local
government has discriminated in exercising its land use and zoning powers. HUD is also
obligated by statute to attempt to conciliate the complaints that it receives, even before it
completes an investigation.
In matters involving zoning and land use, HUD does not issue a charge of discrimination.
Instead, HUD refers matters it believes may be meritorious to the Department of Justice which,
in its discretion, may decide to bring suit against the respondent in such a case. The Department
of Justice may also bring suit in a case that has not been the subject of a HUD complaint by
exercising its power to initiate litigation alleging a "pattern or practice" of discrimination or a
denial of rights to a group of persons which raises an issue of general public importance.
The Department of Justice's principal objective in a suit of this kind is to remove significant
barriers to the housing opportunities available for persons with disabilities. The Department
ordinarily will not participate in litigation to challenge discriminatory ordinances which are not
being enforced, unless there is evidence that the mere existence of the provisions are preventing
or discouraging the development of needed housing.
If HUD determines that there is no reasonable basis to believe that there may be a violation, it
will close an investigation without referring the matter to the Department of Justice. Although
the Department of Justice would still have independent "pattern or practice" authority to take
enforcement action in the matter that was the subject of the closed HUD investigation, that
would be an unlikely event. A HUD or Department of Justice decision not to proceed with a
zoning or land use matter does not foreclose private plaintiffs from pursuing a claim.
Litigation can be an expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain process for all parties. HUD and
the Department of Justice encourage parties to group home disputes to explore all reasonable
alternatives to litigation, including alternative dispute resolution procedures, like mediation.
HUD attempts to conciliate all Fair Housing Act complaints that it receives. In addition, it is the
Department of Justice's policy to offer prospective defendants the opportunity to engage in presuit settlement negotiations, except in the most unusual circumstances.
1. The Fair Housing Act uses the term "handicap." This document uses the term "disability"
which has exactly the same legal meaning.
2. There are groups of unrelated persons with disabilities who choose to live together who do not
consider their living arrangements "group homes," and it is inappropriate to consider them
"group homes" as that concept is discussed in this statement.
>
Updated August 6, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?