Reasonable accommodations and housing
By law, housing providers, including public housing authorities and owners of multifamily housing, must make reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications that:
- give people with physical or mental disabilities access to housing, or
- help them to stay in housing.
If you or someone in your household has a disability, these laws can give you tools that can help you get housing, or make the housing you already have easier to use with your disability.
24 C.F.R. § 100.204; 24 C.F.R. § 9.103; and G.L. c. 151B, § 4(7A)(2). This applies to applicants and existing tenants.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, applies to housing programs receiving federal funds. See also HUD PIH Notice 2010-26, available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_8993.pdf. Even if an apartment or program is not federally funded (i.e., private or state-funded), the federal Fair Housing Act will apply except for owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units or single-family homes, if the owner owns no more than three such units and does not use a real estate professional in the rental or sale of the unit. 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b); 24 C.F.R. § 100.10(c)(2).
State law applies to most types of housing except two-family owner-occupied dwellings. G.L. c. 151B, §§ 1, 4(6) and 4(7).
See generally: Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; 24 C.F.R. § 100; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; 24 C.F.R. §§ 8 and 9; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; 28 C.F.R. § 35; Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination law: G.L. c. 151B, §4; 804 C.M.R. § 2.03; Massachusetts Constitution: Amendment Article 114; Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, G.L. c. 93, § 103.
See 42 U.S.C. § 3602; 24 C.F.R. § 100.201; 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B) and (20)(B); G.L. c. 151B, § 1(17). The Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination statute, the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and all implementing regulations use the term “handicapped” instead of “disability.” The Americans with Disabilities Act uses the term “disability.” The two terms have the same meaning under the law; however, the term disability is preferred due to negative history and associations with the term handicapped.
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
There are some exceptions. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination guidelines for employment discrimination on the basis of disability, while not binding in housing cases, may be helpful. For example, the guidelines state that the following are not qualifying impairments: “environmental, cultural, and economic disadvantages; homosexuality, bisexuality and other sexual orientation; normal pregnancy; personality traits that are not caused by mental or psychological disorders; normal deviations in height, weight or strength; the current, illegal use of a controlled substance; or the nondependent use of alcohol.” Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/mcad-guidelines-on-disability-discrimination-in-employment/download
24 C.F.R. § 8.3, under definition of “individual with handicaps”; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1) (which states that an impairment or group of impairments is substantially limiting if it prevents or significantly restricts the duration, manner, or conditions under which an individual can perform one or more major life activities); G.L. c. 151B, § 1(20); 804 C.M.R. § 2.03(2).
An impairment will still be considered disabling even if it is episodic or in remission if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. 42 U.S.C. §12102(4)(D), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. In addition, a determination whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to ameliorative measures. Ameliorative measures include, but are not limited to, aids such as medication, medical supplies, prosthetics, hearing aids, mobility devices, etc. See fuller list with exclusions at 42 U.S.C §12102(E); see also Department of Housing and Community Development, Public Notice: 2009-11, p. 2 fn. 1; Dahill v. Police Dept. of Boston, 434 Mass. 233 (2001), for analysis of applicability to state anti-discrimination law.
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 24 C.F.R. § 100.201(c).
29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(C); 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h); 24 C.F.R. §§ 9.103 and 100.201; G.L. c. 151B, § 17(c).
29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(C); 24 C.F.R. § 9.103.
760 C.M.R. § 5.08(1)(k).
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Conference Report states that “the provision is intended to apply to a person whose illegal use of drugs occurred recently enough to justify a reasonable belief that the person’s use is current.” See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-596. See also the preamble to Title II regulations at 28 C.F.R. § 35.131; 24 C.F.R. § 9.103 (definition of current illegal use of drugs under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).
Decisions regarding “current use” should be based on facts related to the individual applicant. See United States v. Southern Mgmt. Corp., 955 F.2d 914, 923 (4th Cir. 1992) (a person who was drug free for one year and involved in ongoing professional rehabilitation was protected by federal law); Fowler v. Borough of Westville, 97 F. Supp. 2d 602, 608-609 (D.N.J. 2000) (plaintiff was not excluded from disability protections as a current user of illegal drugs where only use was four months after incident of alleged discrimination); see also Peabody Properties, Inc. v. Sherman, 418 Mass. 603, 605 (1994) (tenant who was convicted for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute was not a protected disabled tenant under federal law despite being drug free and enrolled in a drug rehabilitation program at the time of trial).
24 C.F.R. § 100.201(a)(2); G.L. c. 151B, § 1 (17).
24 C.F.R. § 8.3 (definition of “individual with handicaps”). Note that HUD interprets the Fair Housing Amendments Act in a manner consistent with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See 54 Federal Register 3231, 3245 (Jan. 23, 1989).
Federal public housing: 24 C.F.R. § 960.204(b); Section 8: 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.551(m) and 982.553(a)(3).
24 C.F.R. § 8.33.
See Whittier Terrace Assocs. v. Hampshire, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 1020 (1989)
804 C.M.R. § 2.03(4).
Where state regulations set forth a specific requirement, advocates can use that to argue that a similar requirement in a parallel federal program should be deemed reasonable.
Andover Hous. Auth. v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300 (2005) (tenant must establish that he is “otherwise qualified” when requesting an accommodation in the eviction context). But see Boston Hous. Auth. v. Bridgewaters, 452 Mass. 833 (Mass. 2009).
See Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice entitled “Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act,” May 17, 2004, p. 10 (oral request for accommodation is sufficient to trigger duty of landlord), available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf . In addition, see Department of Housing and Community Development Public Housing Notice: 2009-11, p. 6 (in state public housing, a request for a reasonable accommodation/modification does not have to be made in writing), available at https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/11/06/09-11.pdf
See Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice entitled “Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act,” May 17, 2004, pp. 10-11 (housing authority may not require that a request for a reasonable accommodation be made on a particular form) available at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf
In Boston Hous. Auth. v. Bridgewaters, 452 Mass. 833 (2009), the Court found that the landlord must have known the tenant was disabled where, among other things, he was a non-elder living in elderly/disabled housing, he received Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits and the landlord regularly recertified his income.
See Boston Hous. Auth. v. Bridgewaters, 452 Mass. 833 (2009) (at least in federally financed public housing, a disabled tenant must, if his landlord is not already aware, inform the landlord that he has a disability and must request some accommodation); see also Andover Hous. Auth. v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300, 313 (2005) (tenant has requested an accommodation where the tenant informs the landlord he is a disabled tenant and that he is being denied an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling).
See Boston Hous. Auth. v. Bridgewaters, 452 Mass. 833 (2009) (tenant met his obligation to request an accommodation by making such request to the judge at eviction trial); Radecki v. Joura, 114 F.3d 115, 116 (8th Cir. 1997) (landlord has continuing obligation to provide accommodation up to the date of the eviction); Cobble Hill v. McLaughlin, 1999 Mass. App. Div. 166; Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corporation, 884 A.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (court finds that a reasonable accommodation defense is available at any time before a judgment of possession is entered); but see Andover Hous. Auth. v. Shkolnik, 443 Mass. 300, 313 (2005) (court states in what can be characterized as dicta that the purpose of the administrative process prior to eviction would be thwarted if the tenant is allowed to raise different defenses at different stages of eviction proceedings).