The Arc of Delaware v. Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association, Inc.

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Delaware

Filed: 2015

Agencies: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Delaware Division of Human Relations

Complainant: The Arc Delaware

Respondent: Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association, Inc.

Counsel: Relman Dane & Colfax, The Arc, Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.

Overview: The Arc Delaware filed a complaint in 2015 with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Delaware Division of Human Relations (DHR) seeking a declaration that Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association (SMFPOA) violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused to approve The Arc of Delaware’s acquisition of property meant to house four individuals with I/DD in a single family home integrated within the community. The complaint sought damages to compensate for the loss of housing opportunities and for violations of the federal and Delaware Fair Housing Acts due to disability discrimination.

In 2014, The Arc Delaware’s executive director had submitted a bid on behalf of the organization for a lot owned by SMFPOA. The Arc Delaware intended to build a single family house in a residential subdivision with 65 other lots. His offer was accepted by the seller contingent on SMFPOA’s approval of the sale. However, once SMFPOA learned that residents with I/DD would be living there, it told the executive director that such use was barred by its covenants and also expressed concerns about the amount of parking that would be required by the residents’ support staff.
The executive director tried to explain that The Arc of Delaware’s use was protected by the Fair Housing Act and offered to accommodate the extra parking needs while maintaining a uniform appearance within the community. He also offered to give SMFPOA members a tour of a similar home in the area in order to allay any concerns about daily operations. Shortly thereafter, The Arc Delaware received a letter from SMFPOA reiterating its position that the sale was not approved because it would violate SMFPOA’s covenants and suggesting that allowing people with I/DD into the community would reduce property values and disturb the “quiet enjoyment” of neighbors. The loss of the property and subsequent delay in state funding deprived The Arc Delaware and its clients of at least four community-based housing opportunities.

The complaint filed with HUD noted that the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) makes it unlawful to “make unavailable or deny” a dwelling because of disability as well as to refuse to make “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Federal courts have consistently held that community supported housing for unrelated individuals with I/DD does not constitute a “business” and does not violate “single family” restrictions, and Delaware law expressly recognizes such housing as “single family” properties for zoning purposes. Further, the courts recognize that most discriminatory remarks are made in coded language, such as the need to “maintain property value.”

Once the complaint had been filed, DHR performed an investigation and issued a finding of discrimination in 2016. S

Status: In 2016, following the finding of discrimination, the parties agreed to settle the case and entered into a Conciliation Agreement with DHR, HUD, and The Arc of Delaware. Among other things, the Conciliation Agreement requires SMFPOA to: 1) Apply the same terms and conditions of rental to anyone occupying its properties without regard to disability or any other protected class; 2) Provide written compliance reports to DHR and/or HUD when requested; 3) Allow HUD and DHR to inspect the premises at any time within one year of the agreement; 4) Notify its members and residents in writing of rules, policies, and practices relating to its non-discrimination policy and to prominently display the Equal Housing Opportunity logo within any relevant advertisements it distributes; 5) Ensure that all of its current board members receive comprehensive training on the Fair Housing Act within 90 days of signing the agreement and that all future board members receive such training within 30 days of their election; 6) Pay The Arc Delaware $55,000 in damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs.

Case Documents

Complaint

Conciliation Agreement

Related Media

Press Release: “The Arc of Delaware Reaches Fair Housing Settlement“

Seth v. District of Columbia

/in , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: District of Columbia

Filed: 2018

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Plaintiffs: Mr. Seth

Defendants: District of Columbia, District of Columbia Department on Disability Services

Counsel: The Arc, Brown Goldstein & Levy, Robert Dinerstein, Skadden Arps

Overview: This lawsuit challenges the indefinite incarceration of Mr. Seth, a young man with intellectual disability languishing in federal prison despite not having been convicted of a crime in violation of his right under state and federal law to receive services and treatment in the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs. Mr. Seth, after having been found by the court to be incompetent to stand trial, has been held in federal prison rather than a community-based program in D.C., where he is from and where his family and support system reside. Despite the fact that the District’s Department on Disability Services’ experts concluded that Mr. Seth could be safely served in the community, the District has refused to provide such services to Mr. Seth in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the D.C. Human Rights Act. Because of the District’s inaction, Mr. Seth has been left to languish in federal prison for years, frequently placed in solitary confinement.

Case Documents

Complaint

Proposed Amended Complaint

D.C. Circuit Appellate Brief

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Local D.C. Advocacy Organizations

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Experts in Disability Services

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Former Correctional Officials

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: National Disability Organizations

Related Media

Courthouse News Service: DC Disability Agency Accused of Ignoring Plight of Imprisoned Man

My Volunteer Vision

/in , /by The Arc

Making a plan can help you find a volunteer position that matches your interests and goals for volunteering. Then, you and your trusted supporters can work together to find volunteer opportunities that fit with your vision and address any challenges and worries that you have.

Enter your information below to download the free “My Volunteer Vision” planning document to help you think through your vision for volunteering.

 






By completing this form, you agree to receive email communications from The Arc and/or our affiliated chapters. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For more information, check out our privacy policy.

Finding a Good Match: Questions for Volunteers and Organizations to Ask

/in , , /by The Arc

People who have disability labels have skills, perspectives, and experience that they can use to contribute in meaningful ways to their communities through volunteering. For volunteering to be a positive experience, there must be a good match between the person and the volunteer position. The linke article includes questions that individuals with disabilities can ask themselves and the organizations as they search for the right volunteer activities for them, and questions that organizations can ask as they assess their own response to a volunteer with a disability.

National Inclusion Project

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

The National Inclusion Project operates on three core beliefs works with community organizations and recreational programs, providing them with the training, tools, and support they need so that children with disabilities can be included in all activities and programs.

Special Olympics

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

Special Olympics provides year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy, and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills, and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes, and the community.

Best Buddies International

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

Best Buddies is the world’s largest organization dedicated to ending the social, physical, and economic isolation of the 200 million people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). Best Buddies helpe people with I/DD form meaningful friendships with their peers, secure successful jobs, live independently, improve public speaking, self-advocacy and communication skills, and feel valued by society.

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Care Center, Inc.

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Idaho

Filed: 2014

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief supported a group of Idaho providers of services for people with I/DD seeking reimbursement from their state Medicaid agency that failed to implement new provider rates published by the agency and approved by the federal government. The brief argued that the providers had a private right of action and that Idaho’s failure to implement the new rates violated the Medicaid Act’s equal access position.

Excerpt: “[P]rivate suits with respect to the Medicaid Act…are critical to assure that people with disabilities, particularly those who live in poverty or are elderly, get the health care they need and deserve, and that they have recourse to the federal courts and do not need to depend on an overburdened federal agency to revoke funding when they do not receive such care. Such necessary Medicaid Act services include the home- and community-based programs serving people with disabilities at issue in this suit –‘residential habilitation’ services, provided in supported living environments, and designed to help people with intellectual disabilities to live successfully in the community.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Care Center, Inc.

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

M.W. v. Army

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: California

Filed: 2018

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Overview: The brief supported children with diabetes and the American Diabetes Association arguing that the U.S. Army’s childcare program discriminates against children who need insulin treatment for diabetes, thereby effectively excluding children with diabetes from its childcare programs. The brief also argued for a broad view of organizational standing as essential to disability civil rights cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Excerpt: “Congress has enacted broad statutes to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. This statutory scheme relies heavily on rigorous private enforcement, and both the Supreme Court and this Court have emphasized that district courts must, consistent with Article III, take a broad view of standing in civil rights cases. The district court failed to properly apply this teaching, and its order should be reversed.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: M.W. v. Army