NATIONAL Disabled IL man wins $160,000
FAIR HOUSING settlement from condo association
Advocate E
8 HOPE Fair Housing Center in Wheaton,
Volume XI, Number 1
436 S. 7th Street., Suite 201
Louisville, KY 40203
December 2002 - January2003
Disability &
Accessibility
Report
The National Fair Housing Advocate
has compiled this fourth report to
highlight fair housing cases involving
accessible design and construction
and persons with disabilities. All of
the articles featured in this report
have appeared in prior issues of the
National Fair Housing Advocate.
Some have been edited for space.
INSIDE
Florida fair housing agency wins retro-
fits in $1.5 million settlement against
condo developer. See page 2
Las Vegas condo developers pay $350,000
to settle Justice Dept. accessibility law-
suit. See page 3
Chicago area real estate developer will
pay $423,000 to retrofit units and remove harassed and intimidated by neighbors
barriers to access. See page 4
Oxford House wins $271,000 in judg-
ments and fees against CT town in dis-
ability case. See page 5
Disabled CT man wins $22,200 in rea-
sonable accommodation case. See page 6
Access Living Chicago and Justice De-
partment win $1 million settlement
against IL developer. See page 7
Mobile home park in WA State ordered
to pay $13,044 in service animal case.
See page 8
arlier this year, Michael Scialabba, a
disabled young man; his parents,
James and Barbara Scialabba; and
Illinois settled a federal lawsuit against
the Sierra Blanca Condominium Number
One Association in Hanover Park,
Illinois, and ABC Property Managers,
Inc. The $160,000 settlement in January
2002 resolves complaints resulting from
continual harassment by neighbors and
the condo association’s members based
on Michael’s disability.
Under the general terms of the
settlement, the condominium association
and property managers agreed to pay
$160,000 and to take measures to prevent
and eradicate discrimination against any
current or future resident at Sierra
Blanca on the basis of the individual’s
actual or perceived disability. The
defendants agreed to purchase a $50,000
annuity for Michael Scialabba’s benefit
as part of the settlement.
In 1984, Michael suffered a
traumatic brain injury in an automobile
accident. As a result of the injury,
Michael’s speech and movements are
impaired, causing him to have difficulty
speaking and walking.
Neighbor called disabled man
“retard face” and “pervert”
After the accident, Michael was
and the condominium owners associa-
tion. One particular resident called
Michael “retard face,” screamed “duh”
at him when she saw him, and accused
him of being a “stalker” and a “pervert.”
This neighbor filed several police actions
against Michael but failed to appear in
court each time charges were heard.
Children at the complex repeatedly
harassed and taunted Michael and stole
his wallet and shoes from the swimming
pool. The Scialabbas made repeated
complaints to the Association, but it took
no action to stop the harassment.
The condominium association re-
fused to make reasonable accommoda-
tions for Michael’s disabilities and placed
liens on his parents’ home for legal
expenses the Association might incur as
a result of Michael’s violations of
association rules. According to docu-
ments, others violated rules but had never
had liens placed on their homes.
In June and July 1996, the Scialabbas
and HOPE met with the Association in an
attempt to get reasonable accommoda-
tions for Michael’s disabilities. The
Association refused and told the
Scialabbas that they could stay in their
home only if Michael was committed to
an institution. The Scialabbas refused,
and the Association filed a lawsuit in an
attempt to force the Scialabbas from their
home. That suit was later dismissed.
On September 4, 1996, the Scialabbas
filed a complaint with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). After nearly
three years, HUD failed to issue a
determination in the complaint. The
Scialabbas later filed a federal lawsuit
with the help of HOPE and the Chicago
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law.
The federal court made two
important rulings prior to the case
settling. First, the court determined that
housing providers have a duty to make
good faith efforts to accommodate
disabled residents before they attempt to
remove them from units. This is true even
if a landlord or association contends that
a disabled resident may pose a direct
threat to the property, health or safety of
others. Second, the court determined
that the Illinois Condominium Property
allows a cause of action based on
negligence, meaning that an association
may be held liable for failing to follow its
by-laws, rules and regulations.
Sharon K. Legenza represented the
plaintiffs in this case along with John Z.
Lee, a partner in Freeborn & Peters.
from the July 2002 Advocate
 Florida accessibility settlement may cost
condominium developers as much as $1.5 million
C ocoa, Florida’s Fair Housing Continuum (FHC)
negotiated a settlement worth $1.5 million with the
designers, builders, and developers of three condominium
complexes on Florida’s east coast. The April settlement
includes the cost of retrofitting unit features at each
complex and a $67,500 initial payment to the Fair Housing
Continuum.
FHC found multiple design violations in the units
and common areas at Shorewood Condominiums in Cape
Canaveral, Ocean Oaks Condominiums in Brevard County,
and Oleander Pointe Condominiums in Cocoa. These
violations would have made it difficult or impossible for
persons with mobility impairments to live at the complexes.
FHC Executive Director David Baade told
Florida Today that his organization discovered doors that
were too narrow, outlets and thermostats that would be out
of reach, and thresholds that were too high for wheelchair
users. Baade described these violations as the “main types
Dec. ‘02 - Jan. ‘03 DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY REPORT
of problems” FHC found at the complexes.
Towne Realty, Inc., a Milwaukee-based real estate
firm, developed all three of the complexes in this case. The
Fair Housing Continuum filed its complaint based on
violations at Shorewood and Oleander Pointe. Towne
disclosed that it had also developed Ocean Oaks during
litigation. FHC named MRI Architectural Group and Benko
Construction as defendants in the Shorewood and Oleander
Pointe complaints. FHC named ZRW Corporation a
defendant in the Ocean Oaks complaint.
Under the settlement agreements for each
property, the defendants agreed to retrofit any unit at any of
the complexes upon the request of the unit owner. The
settlement also called for a $500 payment to any unit owners
whom developers would displace while retrofitting was
taking place. After two years, the defendants agreed to pay
FHC $100 for each unit that they did not retrofit at owners’
requests.
Firm will notify all Florida architects of Fair
Housing Act requirement as part of settlement
MRI, the architectural firm for two of the
properties, agreed to send notification of the Fair Housing
Act’s design and construction requirements to every
licensed architect in Florida. According to C.J. Miles,
FHC’s deputy director, HUD has reported a significant
increase in the number of requests from Florida architects
for its Fair Housing Act Design Manual.
Mike Mervis, a spokesperson for Towne Realty,
told Florida Today that he blamed “ignorance” and
“confusing federal regulations” for the violations at the
three Florida complexes. Mervis also blamed local code
enforcement officials for allowing the projects to move
ahead.
Miles agreed that local building officials were not
doing enough to enforce state and federal design laws. One
Florida building official told Miles that the Fair Housing Act
did not apply to his office. Miles does not think that housing
advocates should let developers off the hook for violating
Advocate
the Fair Housing Act and pointed to an early 1990s HUD
project designed to educate real estate professionals about
the design and construction requirements of the 1988
from the September 1999
amendments to the Fair Housing Act.
Baade also blames part of the problem on a lack of
enforcement by government officials. He compared it to
the civil rights laws passed in the 1960s. “The [laws] were
passed, but they weren’t enforced,” Baade said in his
Florida Today interview.
2
 Justice Department gets $350,000 settlement in
accessibility case against Las Vegas condo developers
I n February, the U.S. Department of Justice received a
$350,000 settlement in a federal lawsuit against the
developer, builder, engineer, and architect responsible for
the design and construction of the Raintree Village
Condominiums in Las Vegas, Nevada. The settlement calls
for the developer to pay to retrofit the condominium
complex to bring it into compliance with the federal Fair
Housing Act and to compensate persons who have been
harmed by the lack of accessible features at the complex.
Owners displaced by modifications
will be paid $1,000 for inconvenience
The Consent Decree requires the Defendants to pay
$280,000 into a fund that will be used to modify the common
areas and to modify the ground floor condominium units at
no expense to the owners. In all, 49 types of modifications
will be made to the common areas and ground floor units at
Raintree Village. Current owners who elect to have their
units made accessible will receive a $1,000 incentive
payment to compensate them for the inconvenience of
having work done to their unit. The Decree also provides for
the payment of $70,000 to eight households for the
individuals who were harmed by the lack of accessible
features at the complex.
In its complaint in the Federal District Court in Las
Vegas, the Justice Department alleged that the common
areas including the swimming pool at Raintree Village did
not comply with the accessibility requirements of the Fair
Housing Act. Many of the individual dwelling units on the
The Defendants in the case included Raintree
Associates Ltd. Partnership, Falcon Construction Services,
J. Lamont Langworthy, and Falcon Engineering Services.
Each party agreed to resolve allegations that they had
violated the federal Fair Housing Act by signing the consent
decree. The decree does not spell out how much of the
financial burden each party will bear.
The case against Raintree originally began as a complaint
to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) from the Disability Rights Action
Center, a Utah-based civil rights group that works in Utah
and Nevada. HUD referred the complaint to the
Department of Justice, which conducted its own
investigation prior to filing the lawsuit.
“The failure to make housing accessible when built has a
devastating impact on people who need accessible housing,
and the need for accessible housing will become even more
pronounced as the number of elderly persons in this country
increases” said Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights. “This agreement will help ensure
that residents at Raintree Village will not be forced to
relocate should they develop a disability.”
“Ensuring greater access for people with disabilities is a
priority with this Administration,” said Kenneth Marcus,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for HUD’s Office of
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “This settlement sends
a clear message that we will vigorously enforce the law to
ensure fair housing for people with disabilities.”
Under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,
apartment complexes and condominiums with four or more

Advocate
ground floor were inaccessible to persons using units built for first occupancy after April 1991 must include
wheelchairs, because the doors were too narrow to allow accessible common amenities such as parking, walkways,
persons with wheelchairs to pass through the unit. pools, and clubhouses. Ground-floor units in such

from the July 2002

Additionally, many kitchens and bathrooms did not provide
the required maneuvering space for persons who use
wheelchairs. Finally, the Department alleged, environmen-
tal controls were out of reach and bathroom walls were not
reinforced for grab bars.
multifamily housing must also include doors wide enough to
accommodate persons who use wheelchairs, bathroom
walls that have reinforcements for the installation of grab
bars, and bathrooms and kitchens that are large enough for
people who use wheelchairs to maneuver within them.

Share this report with others

Once again, the National Fair Housing Advocate is making additional copies of its Disability
and Accessibility report available in bulk quantities for disability rights advocates, civil
rights groups, and real estate associations. If you would like to request additional copies of
this report, please call the Fair Housing Council at 800-558-3247, send a fax to 502-583-3180,
or send an e-mail to kyfairhousingcouncil@peoplepc.com. Please include your name, phone
number, and mailing address in your request.
Dec. ‘02 - Jan. ‘03 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 3
 Chicago area developer to pay $423,000 to retrofit
units and settle disability discrimination claims
T he United States Department of Justice settled fair
housing claims against a Chicago area developer for
$40,000 in damages, $3,000 in penalties, and an estimated
$380,000 in retrofitting costs for a Naperville, Illinois apart-
ment complex to make it accessible to persons with dis-
abilities. The May 2002 settlement is one of the latest in a
string of Justice De-
partment accessibility
settlements in its ongo-
ing fair housing testing
program.
The lawsuit, filed in
federal court in Chicago
in January 2001, alleged
that Foxcroft Partner-
ship, Wilfred Barry,
D’Abar Builders, and
Foxcroft Management
& Construction violated
the Fair Housing Act by
failing to design and Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. is the
construct the Foxcroft Assistant Attorney General for
Apartments, a 118-unit Civil Rights at the U.S.
apartment complex in Department of Justice.
Naperville, Illinois, to be accessible to persons with dis-
abilities. At approximately half of the forty-four ground
floor units at the complex, there are steps into the units, the
doorways are too narrow for persons using wheelchairs to
get through them, the bathrooms and kitchens lack adequate
maneuvering space for persons using wheelchairs, there
are no reinforcements for grab bars in the bathroom, and
thermostats and electrical outlets are placed at inacces-
sible heights.
Many barriers will be removed immediately
Under the settlement agreement, Foxcroft Partnership,
Wilfred Barry, and Foxcroft Management & Construction
will correct accessibility barriers to make the complex ac-
cessible to persons with disabilities. Some of the barriers
will be removed immediately, while changes to individual
units will be made at the request of current tenants or when
the current tenants move out of the complex.
Under the Fair Housing Act, new apartment complexes
and condominiums with four or more units must include
accessible common amenities such as parking, walkways,
pools, and clubhouses.
The Act also requires that the ground-floor units in
such new multifamily housing include accessible routes into
Dec. ‘02 - Jan. ‘03 DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY REPORT
and through the dwelling, doors wide enough to accommo-
date persons who use wheelchairs, bathroom walls that
have reinforcements for the installation of grab bars, bath-
rooms and kitchens that are large enough for people who
use wheelchairs to maneuver within them, and environ-
mental controls and electrical outlets at accessible heights.
In addition to making the complex accessible, the settle-
ment agreement also requires the defendants to:
* Pay $40,000 in damages to persons who were
harmed by the lack of accessible features at the
complex;
* Pay $3,000 as a civil penalty;
* Obtain fair housing training for themselves and their
employees; and
* Ensure that any future multifamily housing they
build is accessible to persons with disabilities.
Testers reported inaccessible features under
long-running DOJ fair housing testing program
The Department of Justice learned of the inaccessible
features of the complex when testers sent to Foxcroft Apart-
ments were told that at least half of the complex was not
accessible to persons using wheelchairs. Testers are per-
sons who pose as prospective purchasers or renters in or-
der to gain information about the practices of a housing
provider. Under a program established in 1991, the De-
partment of Justice frequently uses testers to uncover un-
lawful housing discrimination.
“Congress intended new multifamily housing to be us-
able by people with disabilities, and we will continue to
vigorously enforce this law,” said Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
“When builders fail to make apartments accessible, they
are denying housing to people with disabilities,” said Ralph
F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
“As this settlement demonstrates, it is far less expensive to
make housing accessible in the first place than to go back
and fix it later.”
Additional information about the accessibility require-
Advocate
ments of the Act is available on HUD’s website at
www.hud.gov/fhe/fheacss.html.
from the August 2002
U.S. v. Foxcroft Partnership
Case No. 01C-0365
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Winifred Kao, U.S. Department of Justice, Housing and
Civil Enforcement Section; Attorney
4
 Connecticut city and fire department to pay
$271,000 in judgments and fees in disability case
O xford House, a group home for recovering addicts in
New Haven, Connecticut, received a $37,000
judgment and more than $234,000 in legal fees and costs
following an eight-day trial in
the United States District “If the city decides to unleash all of alternative would have served
Court, District of Connecticut. its police powers on unpopular that interest. The apparent bias of
According to a 70-page ruling
disabled residents, the Fair Housing neighbors and public officials, the
by District Judge Gerard L.
Goettel ,the City of West Act and the ADA will be there to cient evidence to establish inten-
Haven and the First Fire provide a remedy.”
District of the City of West
Haven violated the Fair Hous-
ing Amendments Act (FHAA)
by enforcing its regulations and codes and not granting a
reasonable accommodation.
Beverly Tsombanidis, a homeowner using her home as
a group home for recovering alcohol and drug addicts,
Oxford House, Inc., and a group of disabled residents all
alleged that the city and fire district violated the FHAA and
Title II after the City and Fire District began fining
Tsombanidis and ordering her to reduce the number of
residents at Oxford House. The plaintiffs filed disability
discrimination claims alleging intentional discrimination,
disparate impact, and failure to accommodate.
Neighbors complained of “criminals and perverts”
In 1997, neighbors of Oxford House complained to
West Haven officials that “criminals and perverts” had
been moved into their neighborhood without their consent.
A West Haven building inspector visited Oxford House in
the weeks following the complaints. He ordered
Tsombanidis to make repairs and reduce the number of
residents in the home and allegedly remarked that he
“wouldn’t want addicts” in his neighborhood, either. Then,
the City began imposing fines of $99 a day, alleging that
Tsombanidis was running an “illegal boarding house.”
Representatives of Oxford House’s national office
wrote an extensive request for a reasonable accommoda-
tion to allow the house in New Haven to remain open. That
request and subsequent letters were ignored.
The city had argued that it was exempt from the FHAA,
but the court found otherwise. Judge Goettel found that the
city intentionally discriminated against the plaintiffs by
enforcing its regulations and codes and by ignoring the
plaintiffs’ request for a reasonable accommodation.
The City had attempted to shut down Oxford House by
classifying it as a “boarding house” or “rooming house” in
a neighborhood zoned for single-family homes. Judge
Dec. ‘02 - Jan. ‘03 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE
Goettel ruled that this disparately impacted the residents of
Oxford House, who are protected by the FHAA. The City
failed to show that its actions furthered a legitimate
governmental interest and that no
judge found, also provided suffi-
tional discrimination in violation of
-- Steve Polin the FHAA had taken place.
Attorney for Oxford House In his ruling Judge Goettle
explained, “When the benefits of
allowing recovering alcoholics and drug abusers to live in a
single-family neighborhood are weighed against the
financial and administrative burdens to the city, the benefits
to the plaintiffs far outweigh the burdens to the city.”
City’s actions were motivated by discrimination
Steve Polin, general counsel for Oxford House
International, was one of the attorneys that represented the
West Haven house in its federal lawsuit. “These guys were
just looking for a place to put their lives back together,” Polin
said. The court’s decision is important, he says, because it
says that the city’s behavior was motivated by
discrimination. “If the city decides to unleash all of its police
powers on unpopular disabled residents,” he said, “the Fair
Housing Act and the ADA will be there to provide a
remedy.”
Polin recommends that group homes facing the same
kind of opposition mobilize quickly, communicate with the
local government that their rights are protected under
federal law, and put a detailed request for reasonable
accommodation in writing at the earliest opportunity. That
letter should include a request that enforcement actions be
held in abeyance. “Once that letter is sent, the ball is in the
city’s court,” he said. “If it does nothing to respond, that’s
a violation of the law.”
Oxford House is a 25-year-old organization that has
started more than 900 self-help houses nationwide. The
Advocate
residents pay their own rent and live by democratic self-
rule. Anyone who uses drugs or alcohol is expelled.
from the August 2002
Tsombanidis v. City of West Haven
Case No. NO. 3:98CV01316(GLG)
180 F. Supp.2d 262 (D. Conn. 2001)
Steve Polin of Oxford House and members of the law firm of
Zeldes, Needle & Cooper; Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5
 Disabled Connecticut man wins $22,200 settlement
in reasonable accommodation dispute with landlord
I n August, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights
and Opportunities (CHRO) approved a $22,200
settlement to resolve a complaint based on a landlord’s
failure to reasonably accommodate a physically disabled
resident. The settlement includes $18,500 paid to the
complainant and $3,700 for attorney fees. Additional relief
includes a reserved parking space close to the building (and
spaces for all other tenants with similar medical needs),
automated doors in buildings, and the redesign of parking
lots to create accessible parking on an accessible route.
Accessible spaces used by guests and staff forced
disabled man to walk 200 feet to apartment
John J. McCarthy of Hamden, Connecticut asserted
that he was denied a parking space close to the 217-unit
senior living complex where he lived. McCarthy made a
reasonable accommodation request for an accessible
parking space due to his disabilities. Medical providers
confirmed his spinal and hip impairments and supported his
request. While there was ample tenant parking available at
McCarthy’s building, it was often used by staff and guests,
making accessible parking unavailable. This forced
McCarthy to walk more than 200 feet from the street to his
home. Building management even had McCarthy’s car
towed at one point, because he had parked in a time-limited
space after hip replacement surgery.
CHRO Investigator Patricia Christie settled the case
between the parties after extensive mediation. The
complaint was settled prior to a final determination being
entered by the CHRO. The respondents denied
wrongdoing in the case.
Davenport Residence, Inc., the complex owners, and
Elderly Housing Management, Inc., the management
company, agreed to have their Board members, agents and
employees participate in fair housing training as part of the
settlement. They will also receive special training regarding
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Further, they agreed
to rewrite their reasonable accommodation policy for the
approximately fifty elderly housing complexes they manage
and to submit the rewritten policies to the CHRO for review
prior to implementation.
Since the settlement, McCarthy has been harassed and
intimidated. According to McCarthy, after the settlement
was reached, the management company held a tenant
meeting and informed the tenants of the changes that would
be made to the parking lot and the electronic doors that
would be installed. At the meeting, the management
attempted to blame McCarthy for the problems and hinted
Dec. ‘02 - Jan. ‘03 DISABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY REPORT
that rent amounts might rise,
because of the changes. McCarthy
said that the management team
was careful not to mention him
specifically by name in the meeting
but that several residents looked at
him and mentioned his name during the meeting. Since that
meeting, asserts McCarthy, his car has been vandalized and
he has received threatening postcards. McCarthy said that
he has informed the police of the threats.
The CHRO has contacted the management and
informed them to take action to stop the harassment and
intimidation McCarthy is facing. According to McCarthy,
the management company made one weak attempt to stop
the harassment. “They posted a sheet of stationary with no
title to an obscure bulletin board printed in small type, stating
that I had the right to file a discrimination complaint,” he
said. “The emphasis was placed on me rather than the
obligations of the owner and management of Davenport-
Dunbar to follow the fair housing law.” McCarthy informed
the CHRO of the notice and said that Christie has written
to the respondents’ attorney advising that the respondents
could face additional complaints if they do not take better
action to stop the harassment. McCarthy said the “obscure
notice” was quickly removed.
For his part, McCarthy remains satisfied with the
case’s outcome. “The action resulted in the freeing up of
20 or 21 parking spaces for residents with disabilities that
had been usurped by guests and employees.”
Older buildings and those that receive federal
assistance must comply with disability laws
Although Davenport-Dunbar Residence was built prior
to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the federal funding it
previously received and the project-based Section 8 funding
it currently receives obligate the owner and management
company to use accessibility standards outlined in the
Rehabilitation Act and to pay for reasonable modifications
needed by tenants. The accessibility requirements in the
building’s design are also covered under the Architectural
Barriers Act of 1968. Additionally, the owners and
Advocate
management companies of all multifamily housing must
provide reasonable accommodations and modifications
under the disability provisions of the Fair Housing
from October 2002
Amendments Act of 1988.
For more information about this settlement, contact the
Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities at (860) 541-3403.
6
 Please add my name Please correct my address Please remove my name
Please send information for using the Advocate web page (http://www.fairhousing.com)
Please select one:
Federal Government
Name Civil Rights Agency
FHAP Agency
Title Comm Development
State/Local Govt
FHIP Grantee
Organization CHRB
Other Nonprofit/Adv
Address Attorney
Planner
Please fax or mail to:
City, State, ZIP Galen Martin, Editor
Tony Baize, Assistant Editor
Phone ( ) Fax ( ) Fax # 502/583-3180
Architect
Builder/Developer
Real Estate Agent
Mortgage Broker
Bank/Lender
Landlord/Owner
Mobile Home Park Mgr
Tenant/Resident
Academic/Researcher
Other
National Fair Housing Advocate
436 S. 7th Street, Suite 201
Louisville, KY 40203
Voice 502/583-3247

Architects and builders to pay more than $1 million

to settle federal accessibility suit in Evanston, IL
T he designers and developers of an Evanston, Illinois
apartment complex will pay at least $1 million to
correct defects in the complex’s construction and settle a
lawsuit charging them with discrimination against persons
with physical disabilities. The September settlement
resolves a December 2001 Justice Department lawsuit
based on the investigative work of Access Living of
Metropolitan Chicago, a disability rights group. Access
Living and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern
District of Illinois discovered numerous inaccessible
features at Park Evanston, a 24-story luxury high-rise.
Harry Weese Associates, Park Evanston’s architects,
will pay $900,000 to retrofit apartments in the high-rise. The
John Buck Company, who developed the site, will pay for
and perform the work for retrofitting inaccessible features.
The total retrofitting costs are expected to exceed $1 million
and could take up to five years to complete. The defendants
will also pay into a $50,000 victims’ fund to identify disabled
persons who could not move into Park Evanston, $40,000
for Access Living’s attorneys fees and costs, and a $13,600
civil penalty. According to the United States Department of
Justice, this $1 million settlement was the largest fair
housing accessibility settlement involving a single building.
During its investigation into Park Evanston, which was
built in 1997, Access Living found multiple violations of the
Fair Housing Act’s accessibility provisions. Bathroom and
bedroom doors were too narrow for wheelchair users,
Buck Company partner, told the Chicago Tribune that his
firm hoped to complete the retrofits prior to the deadline.
“As this settlement demonstrates, it can be extremely
expensive to go back and make housing accessible after a
building is completed,” U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois
Patrick J. Fitzgerald said at a press conference to announce
the settlement.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Joan Laser added, “The cost
is negligible if you design it right from the beginning, and now
they’re having to spend more than $1 million.”
Karen Tamley, a program director at Access Living,
praised the settlement as one that will make developers take
notice of what will happen if they fail to design and build
accessible housing. She told the Chicago Sun Times that the
settlement “definitely opens the market for the mobility
impaired.” She added, “It sends the message to developers
and designers that this is the law and you have to comply
with it.”
Marca Bristo, the president and CEO of Access Living,
said that the “lack of acceptable, affordable housing” is one
of the largest obstacles disabled persons face. “Full
independence for our community will not be achieved until
we have housing options on par with non-disabled citizens,”
she added.
Bristo is a wheelchair user herself. She suffered a neck
injury nearly 25 years ago and was forced to spend an extra
month in the hospital, because she and her family could not
Advocate

bathrooms and kitchens did not have maneuvering space for find accessible housing. “We had to look at in excess of 100
wheelchair users, and thermostats were placed too high for apartments before I could find one that would meet my
persons with physical disabilities. needs,” she said.
from October 2002

The John Buck Company attempted to place the blame For more information about this settlement, contact the
on the architects. In court documents, the company claimed U.S. Attorney’s Office for Northern Illinois at 312-353-
that architects are responsible to design buildings in 5300 or Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago at 312-253-
compliance with accessibility laws. Kent Swanson, a John 7000.
Dec. ‘02 - Jan. ‘03 NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATE 7
Fair Housing Council
436 S. 7th Street, Suite 201
Louisville, KY 40203
Clark County, Washington woman wins $13,044 in
service animal complaint against mobile home park
C andida Campbell, a disabled woman from Clark
County, Washington, was awarded $13,044 in
damages as a result of a disability discrimination complaint
filed with the Washington State Human Rights Commission
(WSHRC) against Timberlane Mobile Home Park located
in Winlock, Washington. The park attempted to enforce a
no-pets policy against Campbell’s service animal.
Campbell asserted that managers at Timberlane Mobile
Home Park denied her residence because of her use of a
service animal. Campbell suffers from severe migraine
headaches. They range in severity and may come on with
advance warning or very suddenly. Campbell’s dog,
Spicey, is able to alert others to her need for assistance.
Spicey is a Pomeranian.
Although Timberlane Mobile Home Park has a no-pets
policy, the Washington State Law Against Discrimination
says, “It is an unfair practice for any person, whether acting
for himself, herself, or another, because of . . . any sensory,
mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog
guide or service animal by a disabled person” to refuse to
Notice: The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a grant with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the
statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government.
rent or sell housing to that person. The WSHRC
investigated Campbell’s complaint and concluded that the
mobile home park had acted illegally in denying housing to
Campbell and Spicey.
In addition to the $13,044 awarded to Candida
Campbell, the administrative law judge who ruled in the case
awarded $2,000 to her brother, Scott Campbell for
emotional distress and mental suffering. The judge also
assessed a civil penalty of $2,000 to vindicate the public
interest and prevent further discrimination. Timberlane
Mobile Home Park has filed an appeal of the decision in
Clark County Superior Court.
Advocate
According to Mary Clogston of the WSHRC, the
administrative law judge awarded the maximum amounts
for humiliation and mental suffering allowable under
from the November 2002
Washington law. She also noted that the initial awards had
been lower but that Campbell appealed.
Campbell originally filed her complaint in 1997 with the
Commission. The first hearing in the matter occurred in
February 2002 with the final ruling in September 2002.