United States v. Madison Property, L.L.C.

Background

The United States brought this Fair Housing Act case against Madison Property, L.L.C., and Andrew Brenner. Beverly Boucher intervened in the case. Boucher sought to rent Unit #111 at Madison Place Apartments and disclosed that she wanted to live with an emotional-support animal, a cat. The building had a no-pets policy.

The United States asserted two claims. Count I alleged that the defendants refused to rent to Boucher because of her disability, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1). Count II alleged that the defendants refused to make a reasonable accommodation to the no-pets policy so Boucher could live with her emotional-support animal, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).

Brenner testified that Boucher was rejected because of her finances, including her income, bank-account balance, and prior bankruptcy. The United States pointed to evidence that it argued conflicted with that explanation. The parties also disputed whether Boucher told Brenner during the apartment tour that her cat was an emotional-support animal. The defendants raised concerns about the building’s interconnected ventilation system and Brenner’s health, including his claimed allergy to some cats and reduced immune system.

Summary-Judgment Motions

Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court denied the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment and denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

For Count I, the court assumed, without deciding, that the United States could establish that Boucher had a disability and that the defendants knew or should have known about it. The court identified a genuine dispute about whether Boucher was financially qualified and willing to obtain housing from the defendants. That dispute also affected whether the defendants’ stated financial reason was a pretext, meaning a cover for discrimination. Because the evidence was conflicting, the court denied the United States’ motion on Count I.

For Count II, the court likewise found a genuine dispute about whether Boucher was qualified to rent an apartment at the building. Because that issue was unresolved, neither side was entitled to summary judgment on the reasonable-accommodation claim. The court did not need to decide the remaining elements of Count II at this stage. The court also declined to grant the defendants summary judgment based on their asserted direct-threat defense, explaining that a jury could evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed ventilation changes or other mitigation measures.

Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

The United States moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) to exclude the testimony of Stuart W. Steichen, D.O. The court granted the motion under Rule 702 and did not address the alternative Rule 37(c) basis.

The defendants offered Dr. Steichen’s opinions to support their direct-threat defense by showing that a cat in the building could harm Brenner’s health. But Dr. Steichen first treated Brenner several months after the March 2021 decision to deny Boucher’s accommodation request. Dr. Steichen also testified that he had not discussed Brenner’s kidney condition with him and had not reviewed medical records about that condition. Instead, he learned about it through his wife, who was Brenner’s sister and was not a physician. The court concluded that the testimony would not assist the jury and excluded it from the trial record.

Order

The court ordered that the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment was DENIED, the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was DENIED, and the United States’ motion to exclude Dr. Steichen’s expert testimony was GRANTED.