A community association’s obligations do not end with its declaration, bylaws, and rules. Both federal and Illinois law require an association to reasonably accommodate unit owners with disabilities, and an association that treats an accommodation request as a nuisance rather than the beginning of a good-faith dialogue may find itself defending a lawsuit.
Geraci v. Union Square Condominium Association, No. 15 C 2466, 2017 WL 372303 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2017), is a useful reminder that the Fair Housing Act applies to condominium associations, not just landlords, and dismissal of a documented request for an accommodation may expose an association to liability. This article analyzes the court’s decision in Geraci and offers practical guidance for Illinois community associations that receive accommodation requests.
Summary of the Illinois Condominium Dispute
Holly Geraci owned a top-floor unit in the Union Square Condominium Association (the “Association”). The Association permitted residents to keep dogs and to bring them into common areas, including the elevators. Geraci, however, had a longstanding fear of dogs stemming from a childhood attack in which she suffered more than forty bites, and she later developed severe claustrophobia. Between 2004 and 2013, Geraci filed numerous incident reports complaining that residents and dog walkers were violating the building’s pet policy in the elevators. In August 2013, she was involved in an altercation with a dog walker in an elevator, and in October 2013, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).
In October 2014, Geraci submitted a written accommodation request under the Fair Housing Act, asking the Association to modify an elevator so that she could receive a key allowing her to ride nonstop and avoid sharing the confined space with dogs. The Association asked her to provide a physician’s certificate. Geraci responded with a letter from her psychologist confirming her PTSD diagnosis and explaining that accommodations reducing repeated, unexpected re-exposure to fearful stimuli would benefit her. She later supplemented her request, asking the Association to enforce its pet policy and install cameras.
In March 2015, the Association denied the request, stating that it could not ascertain whether an accommodation was required or whether a “nexus” existed between her condition and the request. Geraci filed suit, alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, parallel claims under the Illinois Human Rights Act, and a claim under the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance. The Association moved for summary judgment.
The Illinois Appellate Court’s Analysis
The court denied the Association’s motion for summary judgment on nearly every claim. Under the Fair Housing Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) she suffers from a disability, (2) the defendant knew or should have known of the disability, (3) an accommodation may be necessary to afford her an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and (4) the defendant refused to make a reasonable accommodation. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find each element satisfied. Geraci’s PTSD substantially limited major life activities, including her ability to sleep and to leave her home, the Association knew of her diagnosis by late 2014 after receiving her psychologist’s letter, and her requested accommodations were tied to that condition.
While the court acknowledged that an association may request documentation supporting a disability and the need for an accommodation, it held that a jury could find that the Association made only a “perfunctory” effort and fell short of what the Fair Housing Act requires. Therefore, while an association may request documentation, it must also engage in an interactive dialogue with the unit owner rather than use documentation demands to avoid a decision.
The court also allowed Geraci’s retaliation claim under the Fair Housing Act to proceed. Geraci alleged that the Association circulated “litigation updates” under residents’ doors that disclosed information about her disability, and that it held a building forum that appeared designed to turn other owners against her. The court found the Association’s intent genuinely disputed and reserved it for a jury.
Because the Illinois Human Rights Act is interpreted consistently with the Fair Housing Act, the court permitted Geraci’s parallel claim under the Illinois Human Rights Act to proceed as well. The court dismissed only the Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance claim because the ordinance does not create a private right of action.
Key Takeaways for Community Associations
- The Fair Housing Act applies to Illinois community associations. Condominium associations are subject to the Fair Housing Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act. An association, not just a landlord, must reasonably accommodate a disabled owner in its rules, policies, practices, and services.
- Requesting documentation is permitted, but it cannot become a substitute for a decision. An association may ask for reliable documentation of a disability and the need for an accommodation, but denying a request for lack of a “nexus” after documentation has been provided may be viewed as bad faith.
- Disabilities are not always visible. PTSD and other mental-health conditions can qualify as disabilities under the Fair Housing Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act when they substantially limit a major life activity.
- Retaliation is a separate and serious claim. Publicizing an owner’s disability or protected activity, or appearing to rally neighbors against an owner who has asserted her rights, can support an independent retaliation claim under the Fair Housing Act.
When Do Fair Housing Accommodation Requests Arise in Community Associations?
Accommodation disputes frequently surface when an owner requests an assistance or emotional-support animal in a community with a no-pet or breed-restriction policy, when an owner with a mobility impairment seeks a designated parking space, a ramp, or another physical modification, when an owner asks the association to relax a rule, such as a leasing, guest, or common-element restriction, because of a medical condition, or, as in Geraci, when an owner requests an adjustment to how a shared amenity like an elevator is used. These requests often arrive informally and are easy for a board to overlook or dismiss, which can expose Illinois community associations to liability.
Practical Guidance for Illinois Community Associations
When an association receives an accommodation request, the board should:
- Promptly acknowledge the request and contact the association’s attorney;
- Request only the documentation genuinely necessary to evaluate the disability and the need for the accommodation; a community association should avoid demanding excessive medical information or repeatedly requesting documentation to stall.
- Evaluate the request promptly once the documentation is received, n
- Keep the owner’s disability and protected activity confidential, and never disclose them to other residents; and
- Refrain from any conduct that could be characterized as retaliatory.
Because the line between a permissible documentation request and an unlawful refusal can be subtle, an association should involve legal counsel early.
Conclusion
Geraci confirms that Illinois community associations must take accommodation requests seriously and engage in a genuine dialogue with disabled owners. An association that provides only a perfunctory response, or that uses documentation demands to avoid a decision, risks a fair housing lawsuit, potential retaliation liability, and the reputational harm that accompanies both.
By responding promptly, engaging in the interactive process, and consulting counsel where the request is unclear, an Illinois community association can insulate itself from liability. If your association has received an accommodation request or needs help updating its fair housing policies, contact the experienced Illinois community association attorneys at Hirzel Law.
