The FHAA makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person with respect to housing when that discrimination is based on a handicap.



Sanchez said an FHAA violation can be proved in one of three ways:



* By showing a law is facially invalid.



* By showing that a law demonstrates disparate treatment.



* Or by showing a law demonstrates disparate impact.



Sanchez concluded the Madanats established all three.



The ordinance was invalid on its face, regardless of motive, because it explicitly classified and restricted people solely on the basis of their handicaps, Sanchez said.



The ordinance was also invalid because it resulted in the disparate treatment of a protected class, the judge said.



“The city is trying to prevent saturation, promote integration, and preserve the residential districts,” he wrote. “This is not an adequate justification, nor is it permissible under the FHAA.”



The problem with the city’s “integration” argument, said Sanchez, is that it would unlawfully remove the choice from handicapped people of where they can live, Sanchez said.



This would thwart the FHAA’s goal to protect the housing choice of handicapped people and those who buy or lease property on their behalf, like the Madanats, Sanchez said.



Sanchez cited Horizon House v. Township of Upper Southampton, 804 F.Supp. 683 (E.D. Pa. 1992), to support his decision. In Horizon House, an ordinance requiring a distance of 1,000 feet between group homes and allegedly designed to “prevent clustering” of people with disabilities was struck down by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.



“The city’s rationale for enacting the 500-foot rule is irrational and unfounded, even though it honestly believes it to be otherwise,” Sanchez wrote.



Finally, Sanchez said, the ordinance had a disparate impact. Disparate impact occurs when there is no motive to discriminate, yet the ultimate effect of the defendant’s actions adversely impacts handicapped persons.



“There need not be evidence of malicious or evil motives on the part of the drafters,” he wrote. “Even benign or paternalistic motives can result in an ordinance that treats handicapped individuals differently than other people.”



Equal Protection Concerns

Once it was determined that the ordinance violated the FHAA, the city needed to show that it was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, Sanchez said. The city did not pass this test.



“The city argues that the spacing requirement is necessary to preserve residential districts, avoid saturation and the creation of hospital districts,” Sanchez wrote.



“There is, however, no rational basis for imposing a distance rule on people with disabilities while allowing those without disabilities to live wherever they choose.”