Many community associations are approached by residents with claims of special needs and requests for accommodations to the common elements, common areas and/or facilities at the community. One example that occurs frequently involves a request for a designation among the community parking spaces for handicapped parking, and for the space to be reserved for the exclusive use of the requesting resident. Quite often, the requesting resident expresses the attitude that by simply making the demand, the association must comply or face claims of discrimination. A recent decision of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida clarifies the limitations that exist in such situations and provides guidelines for associations to use when facing such requests.
In the case of Solodar v. Old Port Cove Lake Point Tower Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 12-80040-CIV-MARRA, the Plaintiffs were residents in a condominium qualified as Housing for Older Persons. Although the Plaintiffs had assigned parking at the condominium, they made a demand on the Association Defendant that a parking space located in a lot primarily used by vendors and service providers to the condominium be designated as handicapped parking and assigned to their exclusive use. Because there was not room for such a designation in that particular lot, the Association declined and offered other accommodations to the residents.
Specifically, the offers were in the form of designating a 15 minute owner’s loading zone in the service area parking lot; a designated parking space on a different parking deck from what was requested by the resident, that is the closet possible space to the unit (in exchange for one of the assigned garage spaces); and, another designated space in the garage directly adjacent to the tower elevators for her exclusive use (also in exchange for the other assigned parking space). The residents refused the accommodation offer of the Association and filed a discrimination complaint. The Palm Beach County Office of Equal Opportunity concluded on the side of the resident, finding reasonable grounds that discrimination occurred. The residents filed the law suit to seek an injunction against the Association. The Federal District Court judge disagreed with the findings of the Office of Equal Opportunity, deciding that the conclusion of reasonable grounds was incorrect and that the Association had made a sufficient reasonable offer of accommodation.
In the conclusions of law stated in the Order, the judge presumed that the Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act, but could not succeed on the merits of her claims of discrimination. By virtue of having proposed three other accommodations, the Association acted reasonably under the circumstances. The fact that the accommodations were not the same as the preference of the requesting resident did not make them unreasonable. The Court cited the holding in Stewart v. Happy Herman’s Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F3d 1278 (11th Cir. 1997), that “[t]he requirement of reasonable accommodation does not entail an obligation to do everything humanly possible to accommodate a disabled person. . . the word ‘reasonable’ would be rendered superfluous . . if [defendants’ were required in every instance to provide [plaintiffs] ‘the maximum accommodation or every conceivable accommodation possible.’” (emphasis added)
The holding of this case demonstrates that associations have options when faced with requests for accommodations being made by disabled residents and need not blindly agree to any such request out of a fear of a possible discrimination claim. All of the facts and circumstances of the Community should be reviewed in conjunction with the request made and what would be a reasonable accommodation under the conditions that exist. When possible, a reasonable alternative can be offered but in some situations, there may be conditions that do not allow for any accommodation that would be reasonable. As each case will depend upon the specific facts, it is recommended to consult with the association attorney before responding to any such request.