Doe v. Five Keys Schools and Programs

Background

Plaintiff John Doe, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed this action against Five Keys Schools and Programs arising from events at a shelter Five Keys operated in San Francisco. Doe alleges he was residing at the shelter as his temporary home, where he slept, used bathroom and shower facilities, stored prescription medication and personal property, and expected to remain while complying with program rules.

Doe alleges physical and mental disabilities — including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic pain, and mobility limitations — that substantially limit major life activities, and that sudden, hostile, or confrontational interactions aggravate his symptoms. He alleges he disclosed these disabilities to Five Keys staff and repeatedly requested disability accommodations including trauma-informed communication, de-escalation, and equal access to hygiene facilities.

Doe alleges that after he made these requests, staff hostility increased, staff accused him of misconduct, and on September 30, 2025, Five Keys imposed an Immediate Denial of Service (DOS) — an immediate expulsion — without providing requested accommodations, without an individualized assessment, and without considering less restrictive alternatives. Doe alleges he had no safe alternative placement while awaiting an internal hearing scheduled for October 6, 2025. After the DOS, Five Keys denied or delayed his access to prescription medication, identification, clothing, hygiene items, legal materials, and other belongings. Doe alleges resulting physical and psychological harms, housing instability, missed medical and legal appointments, and more than $500 in replacement costs. He also alleges a manager stated, in substance, that Five Keys did not care about lawsuits, always wins, and knew how to handle "people like" Doe.

Procedural History

This is the third iteration of Doe's complaint. The court previously granted Five Keys' motions to dismiss the original complaint and the First Amended Complaint, each time with leave to amend. The original complaint was dismissed for failure to give fair notice of claims (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8), failure to allege Five Keys is a public entity (required for a Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claim), failure to allege state action (required for a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983), and insufficient factual allegations supporting the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Rehabilitation Act claims. The First Amended Complaint was dismissed for similar reasons, though the court found the retaliation claim had been adequately pleaded. The court warned that a § 1983 claim against a private entity like Five Keys was unlikely to succeed without allegations of state action.

In the Second Amended Complaint — the operative complaint — Doe dropped the § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act Title II claims and asserts three causes of action: (1) violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; (2) disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f); and (3) retaliation and interference under the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.

Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepts all factual allegations as true and construes them in the plaintiff's favor. The complaint must plead enough facts to make the claim plausible — not merely possible — on its face, per the standards set out by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Purely conclusory allegations and bare recitations of legal elements are not accepted as true.

Ruling on Each Claim

Claim 1: Rehabilitation Act (Section 504)

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act bars disability discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was denied a reasonable accommodation needed for meaningful access to the program's benefits; and (3) the program receives federal financial assistance.

The court found all three elements plausibly alleged. Doe alleged documented disabilities substantially limiting major life activities; that he was eligible for and using Five Keys' shelter services; that Five Keys knew of his disabilities and accommodation requests but treated disability-related distress as misconduct, failed to provide accommodations, and expelled him; and that Five Keys receives federal financial assistance. The court held that whether the requested accommodations are reasonable or would fundamentally alter Five Keys' program are merits questions not appropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.

On the intentional discrimination requirement for damages under Section 504, the court found Doe plausibly alleged deliberate indifference — the applicable standard, which requires knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely and a failure to act on that likelihood. The court found the allegations that Five Keys knew of his disabilities and accommodation requests, failed to consider or implement accommodations, and proceeded with immediate exclusion despite foreseeable harm, including denial of medication and shelter, were sufficient to survive dismissal. The court denied Five Keys' motion to dismiss this claim.

Claim 2: FHA Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate

The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of a dwelling, or in services connected to a dwelling, because of a disability. To state a failure-to-accommodate claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) he has a qualifying disability (a "handicap" as defined by the FHA); (2) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the disability; (3) accommodation may be necessary for equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; and (4) the defendant refused to make the accommodation.

The court found all four elements plausibly alleged. Doe's PTSD, chronic pain, and mobility impairment satisfy the FHA's definition of handicap. His repeated disclosures to staff satisfy the knowledge element. His specific requests for trauma-informed communication, de-escalation, equal access to hygiene facilities, and coordinated retrieval of medication and property — directly tied to his disabilities — satisfy the necessity element. Five Keys' failure to implement any of these before the DOS, and its denial of access to medication and belongings afterward, satisfy the refusal element. The court also found Doe plausibly alleged a distinct and palpable injury: exclusion from shelter, denial of medication and property, worsening physical and psychological symptoms, housing instability, financial loss, and ongoing difficulty obtaining stable housing and medical care. The court denied Five Keys' motion to dismiss this claim.

Claim 3: FHA Retaliation and Interference

The FHA's retaliation provision bars coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of rights protected by the FHA. To state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) protected activity; (2) adverse action causally linked to that activity; and (3) resulting damage.

The court found all three elements plausibly alleged. Doe's requests for disability accommodations, complaints about unequal treatment, and references to grievance procedures and legal remedies constitute protected activity. The DOS, removal from shelter, denial of access to medication and belongings, and interference with internal review processes are adverse actions. The causal connection was plausibly alleged through the allegation that staff hostility escalated after Doe's requests, culminating in his expulsion — a temporal sequence and escalating pattern sufficient at the pleading stage to support a plausible inference of retaliation or interference. The court denied Five Keys' motion to dismiss this claim.

Outcome and Next Steps

The court denied Five Keys' motion to dismiss in its entirety. Five Keys was ordered to file its answer by September 1, 2026. A case management conference was scheduled for October 1, 2026.