Skochko v. Mercy Housing, Inc.

Background

Sydney Skochko sued Mercy Housing, Inc., Mercy Housing California, and Mercy Housing Management Group, Inc. She alleged that the defendants failed to reasonably accommodate her disabilities during temporary relocations from the Hamilton Apartments while the building’s wheelchair-accessible lift was being repaired. Skochko said she needed a hospital bed because of severe pain and difficulty sleeping without one.

Skochko brought claims under the federal Fair Housing Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California’s Disabled Persons Act, and California’s Unruh Act. Before the court were Mercy Housing, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, Skochko’s motion for partial summary judgment, and all defendants’ motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment.

Mercy Housing, Inc.

The court granted Mercy Housing, Inc.’s summary-judgment motion. The evidence showed that Mercy Housing, Inc. was a separate corporate entity and had no involvement in or control over the Hamilton’s day-to-day operations. The building’s owner contracted with Mercy Housing Management Group to manage the building, and Skochko did not identify evidence that Mercy Housing, Inc. was part of that management contract or had its own contract to manage the building.

Failure-to-accommodate claims

The court addressed Skochko’s claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Disabled Persons Act against Mercy Housing California and Mercy Housing Management Group. These laws prohibit disability discrimination in housing, including refusing reasonable accommodations that may be necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a home.

The court held that the undisputed evidence established that Skochko had a disability known to the defendants, that an accommodation could be necessary for her equal use and enjoyment of the home, and that the defendants did not provide a hospital bed. The court also held that Skochko requested a rented hospital bed by June 17, 2019, before her 66-day relocation, and by November 5, 2019, at the latest, before her 15-day relocation.

The court concluded that the request for a rented hospital bed was reasonable on its face and supported by evidence that it was possible. The evidence included testimony that the hotel did not prohibit hospital beds, that the defendants later offered reimbursement for a rented bed, and that the defendants rented and delivered a hospital bed for Skochko during a March 2021 relocation. The defendants did not provide enough evidence that arranging a rented bed would have caused an unreasonable burden or hardship. The court therefore granted Skochko’s partial summary-judgment motion on her failure-to-accommodate claims against Mercy Housing California and Mercy Housing Management Group.

Unruh Act claim

The court denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion on Skochko’s Unruh Act claim. That claim required evidence of intentional discrimination, meaning willful, affirmative misconduct. Viewing the evidence in Skochko’s favor, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find intentional discrimination based on the defendants’ knowledge of her disabilities, their refusals of her hospital-bed requests, the lack of written records about inquiries to hotels, and Skochko’s spending a total of 81 days without a hospital bed while in pain.

The court did not decide that intentional discrimination occurred. It decided only that a reasonable jury could reach that conclusion.

Punitive damages

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on punitive damages under the Fair Housing Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Under the Fair Housing Act, a jury could find reckless or callous indifference to Skochko’s federally protected rights. Under the California law, a jury could find oppressive conduct based on evidence that the defendants consciously disregarded her right to a reasonable accommodation and caused her unjust hardship.

Disposition

The court granted Mercy Housing, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. It granted Skochko’s motion for partial summary judgment as to Mercy Housing Management Group, Inc. and Mercy Housing California, but denied it as to Mercy Housing, Inc. It denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley noted that the parties had expressed a willingness to pursue further settlement discussions.