About Us
An issue that may reach the Supreme Court in the near future is whether the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) requires landlords to reasonably accommodate the economic hardships of people with disabilities, including many older adults. Pub. L. No. 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619, 1620-22 (1988) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 3604). A reasonable accommodation is a change in a rule, policy, practice, or service that may be necessary to allow a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). A requested accommodation can be deemed unreasonable if it imposes an undue financial and administrative burden on the housing provider or if it would fundamentally alter the nature of the housing provider’s operations.
Recently, the Eighth Circuit held that federal law does not require landlords to accept housing choice vouchers as a reasonable accommodation under the FHAA. Klossner v. IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC, 65 F.4th 349 (8th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 328 (2023). In Klossner, the plaintiff argued that she was a person with a “handicap” under the FHAA and that the law required her landlord to accept her housing choice voucher as a reasonable accommodation that was “necessary” to afford her “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Id. at 352 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)). The landlord argued that their policy against accepting housing vouchers was due to the administrative burdens associated with accepting payments through such vouchers. Id. at 351-52. The court agreed with the landlord and found that the FHAA did not extend a landlord’s duty to reasonably accommodate a disability to accommodating the economic effects of a tenant’s handicap. Id. at 354-55.
However, decades earlier, the Ninth Circuit decided that a landlord who had a policy of forbidding cosigners for apartment applications was required to reasonably accommodate a tenant’s disability that caused the tenant to be unemployable and unable to financially qualify for an apartment. Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003). The court required the landlord to individually assess the risk of nonpayment created by the tenant’s specific proposed financial arrangement that the apartment be rented by his financially qualified mother. Id. at 1144-45. Klossner appears at odds with Giebeler’s individual assessment of nonpayment risk in response to an FHAA claim. Although the Supreme Court declined to hear Giebeler, the uncertainty of what is required of landlords may remain. If a case like Klossner or Giebeler were to reach the Supreme Court, it could have widespread implications for people with disabilities, including many older adults, facing financial barriers to obtaining housing.
Mary William, MWilliam@aarp.org
Sébastien Monzón Rueda, SMonzonRueda@aarp.org
View the Full Supreme Court Preview