Study Notes on Fair Housing Act Case: United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearney
940 F.Supp.2d 974 (2013)
Case Overview
Case Citation: The case is officially cited as 940 F.Supp.2d 974 (2013), indicating it is published in volume 940 of the Federal Supplement, Second Series, starting on page 974, and was decided in 2013.
Court: This case was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, a federal trial court.
Date: The Memorandum and Order was issued on April 19, 2013.
Plaintiff: The plaintiff in the case was the United States of America, acting through the Department of Justice, on behalf of Brittany Hamilton.
Defendants: The defendants included the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK), the overarching Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and various unnamed UNK officials responsible for housing decisions.
Case Number: The specific identifier for this case in the court's system was No. 4:11-CV-3209.
Legal Representation
For Plaintiff: Attorneys Colleen M. Melody and Mary J. Hahn represented the Plaintiff from Washington, DC, along with Laurie A. Kelly from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Omaha, NE.
For Defendants: Alison A. Basye represented the University of Nebraska from Lincoln, while Anthony D. Todero and Scott P. Moore were attorneys from the Baird, Holm Law Firm in Omaha, NE, representing the defendants.
Memorandum and Order by District Judge John M. Gerrard
Legal Basis
Fair Housing Act (FHA): The core of the legal dispute revolved around the Fair Housing Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. This landmark civil rights law makes it unlawful to discriminate in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and handicap status. The central provision cited in this case was 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the sale or rental of a dwelling.
Central Question: The pivotal legal question examined by the Court was whether student housing facilities at the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK) qualify as a "dwelling" under the protective scope of the FHA.
Conclusion: The Court decisively concluded that, yes, UNK's student housing is considered a "dwelling" for the purposes of the FHA. This determination had significant implications for the case's outcome.
Result: Based on this finding, the Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the case, and concurrently granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, affirming the applicability of the FHA.
Background of the Case
Involved Party: The individual whose circumstances led to this litigation was Brittany Hamilton, a student at UNK.
Medical Condition: Ms. Hamilton had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety, conditions that significantly impacted her daily life and academic performance.
Accommodation Request: Her healthcare provider prescribed a therapy dog as a necessary emotional support animal to help her manage her anxiety attacks and mitigate the symptoms of her depression.
University Housing Dispute: Ms. Hamilton signed a lease agreement for University Heights, a specific student housing facility at UNK, for the fall 2010 academic semester.
Her subsequent request to live with her prescribed therapy dog was denied by UNK, citing the university's strict "no-pets policy."
Result: Due to the denial and the inability to secure the necessary accommodation, Ms. Hamilton withdrew from her classes and moved out of university housing, which ultimately disrupted her educational progress.
Student Housing Overview: UNK is a public four-year university that provides on-campus housing for a substantial portion of its student body, accommodating approximately 2,280 students annually.
Varied Housing Types: The university offers a diverse range of housing options, including traditional dormitory-style residences, suite-style accommodations, specialized housing for fraternities and sororities, and independent apartment-style units.
Costs: For the 2010-11 academic year, room and board charges for university housing ranged from approximately 3,569 to 4,214 per semester, depending on the specific housing option chosen.
Underage Student Policy: A significant policy requires all students under the age of 19 to reside in university housing, unless specific exceptions, such as living with immediate family within a certain radius, are granted.
Nature of University Housing
General Information
UNK actively emphasizes that living on campus is designed to enhance the overall educational experience for students, fostering a sense of community and providing convenient access to academic resources.
Room Assignment Process: Students do not directly choose individual rooms; instead, they submit preferences (e.g., single/double, specific building styles) and are then assigned rooms by the university. This contrasts with typical landlord-tenant arrangements where tenants select specific units.
Permanent Address: Most students maintain and list a "permanent address" that is distinct from their campus address, typically their family home.
Meal Plan Requirement: A mandatory meal plan is part of the housing agreement for most students residing in university housing, with the notable exception of residents in University Heights, who have full kitchens.
Academic Break Closures: Many university housing facilities, particularly dormitories, close completely during extended academic breaks, such as winter or summer holidays, requiring students to vacate their rooms.
University Heights Characteristics: This specific facility, relevant to Ms. Hamilton's case, presented unique features:
Location: University Heights is situated approximately one mile away from the main campus, offering a slightly more independent living environment.
Designation: It is explicitly defined and marketed as "apartment-style living," primarily intended for graduate students, families, married students, and single students over the age of 21.
Furnishings & Maintenance: Unlike dorms, apartments in University Heights are largely unfurnished, requiring students to provide their own furniture. Residents are also responsible for maintaining the cleanliness and upkeep of their individual units.
Utilities & Rent: Essential utilities, excluding phone and internet services, are included in the rent. As of July 1, 2010, the monthly rent was 390 for a one-bedroom apartment and 320 for an efficiency unit.
Summer Residency: Residents were permitted to remain in University Heights during the summer months provided they maintained a full course load, further suggesting a more continuous residency option.
Legal Argument & Judge's Analysis
FHA Definition of Dwelling
Definition: The FHA defines a "dwelling" broadly as "any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof." This definition is found in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(b).
Interpretation Principles: Legal precedent dictates that the terms within the FHA, including "dwelling," should be broadly and liberally construed to fully support the Act's significant policy objectives of eliminating housing discrimination.
Determination Criteria: The primary criterion for determining whether a place constitutes a dwelling hinges on whether it is currently occupied or, more importantly, intended for occupancy as a residence. The intent element is crucial, as it doesn't require permanent occupancy.
Court's View on Residence: The Court emphasized that "residence" implies a place where an individual intends to return, thereby distinguishing it from purely transient or temporary accommodations like a hotel room for a single night. It is a place of habitation. The Court drew an analogy with existing case law that has consistently included dormitories and boarding schools within the FHA's scope, citing Franchi v. New Hampton School, 656 F.Supp.2d 252.
Defendants' Argument
UNK's primary argument centered on the assertion that students in university housing are merely "transient" occupants, lacking the requisite intent to reside there permanently or establish a long-term home. They contended that students viewed these as temporary lodgings for educational purposes, not homes.
Statistical Data: To bolster their argument, UNK presented statistical data indicating that many students leave university housing after their first year and often maintain different "permanent addresses" at their family homes, reinforcing the idea of a temporary stay.
Court's Refutation of Transience: The Court directly refuted the claim of transience by highlighting that the potential for extended duration of residency in university housing, often spanning multiple academic years through successive leases, is comparable to many traditional residential leases. It noted that the concept of "temporary" does not automatically equate to "transient." The Court cited Cohen v. Township of Cheltenham, 174 F.Supp.2d 307, which emphasized that even housing of a temporary nature can still qualify as a residence under the FHA if the intent to return or occupy for a significant period exists.
Relevant Case Comparisons
Migrant Workers' Housing: The Court drew parallels with previous judicial rulings that found housing provided for migrant workers, often seasonal and tied to employment, to be included within FHA protections despite its temporary nature. Cases like Lauer Farms, Hernandez, and Villegas established this precedent.
Halfway Houses: The Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 was cited, which firmly established the residential nature of halfway houses. This was significant because halfway houses, despite typically having temporary stays and structured, restrictive environments, were still recognized as residences due to their function as a place of habitation.
Critical Analysis of UNK's Arguments
Comparison to Jail
UNK employed a highly evocative comparison, likening university housing environments to jails, arguing that the restrictive rules, lack of personal choice in rooms, and mandatory meal plans implied a non-residential, punitive character. They suggested these conditions made the housing more akin to an institution than a home.
Court's Disagreement: District Judge Gerrard strongly disagreed with this comparison. He emphasized that the primary purpose of UNK housing is to provide a place of residence that supports an educational experience, allowing students significant freedom and privacy akin to being at home, within the bounds of community living. This fundamentally differentiates it from the punitive and highly restrictive environments of jails, which are designed for incarceration, not habitation.
HUD Regulations
HUD Definition: Crucially, the Court referenced regulations from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal agency primarily responsible for administering and enforcing the FHA. HUD's definition explicitly states that a dwelling unit includes a diverse range of residential structures, specifically mentioning "apartments, dormitories, and single family homes." This is found in 24 C.F.R. § 100.20.
Significance & Deference: The significance of this regulation lies in the principle of judicial deference; courts typically give substantial weight to an administrative agency's interpretation of the statute it is charged with enforcing. HUD's clear inclusion of dormitories directly supported the plaintiff's position.
Rejection of UNK's Argument: UNK's argument that university housing deviates from the FHA's intent because it is primarily an "educational service" designation was found to lack merit. The Court reasoned that the provision of housing, even in an educational context, does not negate its fundamental residential character, especially when it serves as a primary place of abode for students over extended periods.
Conclusion and Orders
The Court ultimately determined that UNK's student housing facilities definitively qualify as "dwellings" under the comprehensive framework of the Fair Housing Act. This pivotal finding led to the granting of the United States' cross-motion for summary judgment on this specific legal question.
Order Summary: The Court issued the following clear orders:
Granting Plaintiff's Motion: The Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, specifically concerning the applicability of the FHA to UNK's student housing, was granted.
Denying UNK's Motion: The defendants' motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the FHA claims, was denied.
Establishing "Dwellings" Status: The Court formally established and declared that UNK's student housing facilities are indeed deemed "dwellings" according to the definitions and intent of the Fair Housing Act.
Additional Notes
This case provides important legal precedent by explicitly extending the protections of the Fair Housing Act to university student housing, reinforcing the broad interpretive approach to FHA definitions.
The rulings in this case, alongside other critical case analyses, emphasize the legislative intent to include various forms of structured residences within the FHA's scope, thereby effectively protecting individuals with disabilities under diverse living conditions.
The tension between the operational market practices and policies of educational institutions and the legislative intent of federal housing rights, particularly regarding accessibility and non-discrimination, remains an ongoing and evolving discussion in the judicial landscape. This case highlights how courts navigate these complex intersections to uphold civil rights.