Enforcing the Fair Housing Act to Obtain Assistive Technology
Fred Fuchs, Esq., Housing Attorney, Legal Aid of Central Texas

Case Scenarios

The following are scenarios that an attorney, paralegal or advocate may encounter in a disability-related practice, in either the public or private sector. In each case, the individual seeks something that might be described as assistive technology (AT), or they are seeking some right that will allow them to fully use AT which they already possess. How can the Fair Housing Act be used to help the person obtain or retain what they are seeking.

SCENARIO # 1

Part A:

        Manny Stevens is blind and lives alone in a 34-unit, privately owned apartment complex. His apartment is a two bedroom unit and Manny uses one of the bedrooms as a home office. Manny is a freelance grant writer who has his own computer equipment in his home office, including a personal computer, printer and fax machine.

        Manny is best described as a morning person. He does some of his best work between 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., knowing that none of his clients will want to talk on the phone that early. During these early hours Manny is very quiet, but sometimes his computer is not. His computer has "voice output," allowing him to hear the material on the computer screen which he cannot see. This is critical, as part of Manny's work involves accessing requests for proposals through government web sites. It also involves the need to have the computer's voice output system read back his drafts to him for editing purposes.

        Manny's next door neighbor is Cranky Jane. She is not a morning person, as she works until midnight Monday through Friday and gets to bed about 1:00 a.m. Cranky needs about 7 and ½ hours of sleep to function during the day. Unfortunately, due to the adjoining thin walls, Manny's talking computer routinely wakes Cranky Jane up between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m. every day. Cranky asked, but Manny refused to change his work habits. She then went to the building manager.

• What if the building manager insists that Manny not do any work on his computer that generates voice output before 8:30 a.m. Would the Fair Housing Act protect his right to use the device as early as 5:00 or 6:00 a.m.?
  
• What if the manager insisted that Manny use headphones to listen to his computer when he works before 8:30 a.m.? In that case, can Manny insist that the building owner pay for the headphones?
  
• What if the manager offered to move Manny to an apartment where his home office would not have a common wall with another apartment, thereby avoiding the disturbance issue? What if the move was to a different apartment building two miles away?

Part B:

        Assume the same basic facts as in Part A. The apartment comes equipped with a microwave. However, Manny cannot use it because he cannot see any of the squares he is required to push, nor can he read the screen that indicates times, heat temperature, etc.

        There is one "talking microwave" available on the market at a cost of $350. Manny asks the landlord to provide this to him, claiming that it is the only way he can enjoy the benefits of what is supposed to be included as part of his rent. The building manager tells Manny that they will not purchase the talking microwave, indicating that they purchased the existing microwave two years ago for $150 and it can be expected to last for several more years.

• Does Manny have a right to the talking microwave under the Fair Housing Act?
  
• Will cost ever be a factor? What if the cost of providing the accessible appliance were an extra $1,200 instead of $200?

Part C:

        Assume that Manny gets his talking microwave. You guessed it! Manny's routine is to get up every morning and make oatmeal and heat water for tea in the microwave. The noise from the talking microwave now disturbs Cranky Jane. There is nothing Manny can do to control the volume.

• Does Manny have a right, under the Fair Housing Act, to create this disturbance every morning at 5:00 a.m.?

SCENARIO # 2

Part A:

        Wende Williams has a physical disability and uses an extra wide power scooter for mobility. She is capable of independent transfers, but is otherwise dependent on the use of the scooter even for traveling short distances. She drives a specially modified van, equipped with a hydraulic lift for allowing her to enter and exit it from the side van door.

        Wende just moved into the same 34-unit apartment complex as Manny in scenario # 1. Wende has been provided with an accessible parking space, but it is one quarter of a mile away at a second apartment complex owned by the same company that owns her apartment building. Wende has requested and been denied a similar parking spot closer to her building entrance. There are "handicapped accessible" parking spaces within 150 feet of the entrance way, but those can only accommodate regular vehicles; they cannot accommodate a van with a lift. Wende, who is in her 30s, complains that very mobile senior citizens are unfairly taking advantage of the special parking privileges.

• Does Wende have a right, under the Fair Housing Act, to the special parking space within 150 feet of her building?

Part B:

        The apartment complex that Wende has moved into has ramps and an elevator which allows her full accessibility to get into the building and up to her third floor apartment. However, Wende does not have the ability to get into the laundry room on the first floor of her apartment building. This is because the doorway to the laundry room is not wide enough to allow her to enter the room. Because of this, Wende has been driving to a laundromat that is three miles away. She wrote a letter to the apartment manager and the business manager two months ago about this. Recently, she was told by the apartment manager that there is nothing they can do.

• Does Wende have a right, under the Fair Housing Act, to have the doorways widened in the laundry room in order to meet her needs?
  
• Would the Fair Housing Act allow her to sue for money damages because she has been effectively denied access to the laundry room?
  
• If Wende's attorney sues and wins, is there a provision in the Fair Housing Act for collecting attorney's fees against the owners of the apartment complex?

Part C:

        Before Wende moved in, she asked the apartment building to put hand rails in her bathroom because Wende does not have the stability to get in and out of the shower/bathtub without the handrails. The business manager informed Wende that the apartment complex did not consider this to be part of its obligation, but said she had permission to do so at her own cost so long as she agreed to restore the bathroom to its original condition when she moved out. The management also indicated that it would require Wende to pay a $250 extra security deposit toward any potential damage to the premises caused by the installation and removal of the grab bars.

        Wende borrows money and installs the grab bars at her own cost ($650) and pays the $250 security deposit.

• Did Wende have a right, under the Fair Housing Act, to have her landlord install the grab bars at the landlord's cost?
  
• Is the extra $250 security deposit allowed under the Fair Housing Act?

Return to Table of Contents | NLS Home Page | Feedback | Search the NLS Website