Tenant Claims Landlord's Termination of Her Parking Space Was Discriminatory

Tenant sued landlord in federal court, claiming landlord denied her an accessible parking space at the building, terminated her parking space on the basis of her race and disability status, and retaliated against her for complaining and filing a complaint with HUD and the NY State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR). Before filing an answer, landlord asked the court to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The court ruled for landlord in part. Although tenant argued that landlord violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) through its failure to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, its disparate treatment of her because of her race and disability, and retaliation against her, she didn't explicitly state whether her claims were brought under Title II or Title III of the ADA, which "forbids discrimination against persons with disabilities in three major areas of public life[.]" Landlord wasn't subject to any of the titles of the ADA that covered employment, provision of services by a public entity, or activities in a public accommodation. A parking lot in a private apartment complex may count as a "public accommodation," but the ADA's definition of the term doesn't support this claim. 

Landlord argued that tenant's claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) were time-barred because she didn't start her court action within two years after the last occurrence of alleged discrimination. Tenant responded that her FHA claims were timely due to the "continuing violation doctrine" and because the statute of limitations was tolled starting when HUD accepted her complaint. But tenant's complaint failed to identify a specific discriminatory policy or program that caused the alleged incidents of discrimination. So the continuing violation doctrine didn't apply. But the filing of the HUD complaint did toll the two-year time limit. So tenant timely sued for an incident that occurred on or after Feb. 3, 2018. The court did also note that tenant's timely FHA claims weren't precluded by the NYSDHR's no-probable-cause finding. 

The court did construe tenant's complaint to raise claims under the Rehabilitation Act and/or the NYS Human Rights Law, even though tenant didn't specify such claims. And tenant set forth sufficient facts to support her disparate treatment claim under the FHA. And landlord didn't timely contest the merits of tenant's reasonable accommodation claims under the FHA and Rehabilitation Act, or her retaliation claims under the FHA. The court gave landlord 21 days to file an answer to tenant's surviving claims.

Wilshire v. L&M Dev. Partners: Index No. 20-CV-7998, 2022 US Dist. LEXIS 51198, 2022 WL 847067 (SDNY; 3/22/22; Oetken, J)