Thompson v. CRF-Cluster Model Program, LLC

Background

Peter Thompson formerly lived with his two adolescent children in temporary housing provided by CRF-Cluster Model Program, LLC, a private entity associated with the Children’s Rescue Fund that provides housing to homeless families. Thompson alleged that, from 2017 through 2019, CRF-Cluster employees repeatedly requested private information, including financial statements, Social Security award letters, school records, and medical records. He also alleged that CRF-Cluster did not adequately protect that information.

Thompson alleged that CRF-Cluster pressured him to leave his apartment and treated him differently because he is Black, has a disability, and has children. He further alleged that he requested a move from a fifth-floor apartment to a lower floor because of osteoarthritis in his hip, but that CRF-Cluster did not promptly address the request. CRF-Cluster later offered a third-floor one-bedroom apartment or assisted-living housing, both of which Thompson rejected because he believed they were unsuitable for his family.

Thompson’s Third Amended Complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; New York Education Law § 7704; New York’s Personal Privacy Protection Law; New York’s Social Security Number Protection Law; Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Fair Housing Act; the New York State Human Rights Law; the New York City Human Rights Law; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. CRF-Cluster moved to dismiss the first eight claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court considered the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations true for purposes of the motion and construed Thompson’s self-represented filings broadly.

Rulings on the Claims

Section 1983. The court denied dismissal of Thompson’s claim that CRF-Cluster violated his Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights by collecting confidential information. Although CRF-Cluster is a private entity, the court found that Thompson plausibly alleged that its collection of the information was compelled or controlled by state and municipal regulations. The court also found that Thompson sufficiently alleged a protected privacy right and noted that CRF-Cluster did not otherwise argue that the alleged conduct failed to state a claim.

New York Education Law. The court dismissed Thompson’s claim that a CRF-Cluster employee acted as an unlicensed social worker because Section 7704 does not provide a private right of action—that is, it does not allow an individual to sue directly under that provision.

Personal Privacy Protection Law. The court dismissed this claim because the statute regulates state agencies, and CRF-Cluster is a private entity rather than a covered public agency.

Social Security Number Protection Law. The court dismissed this claim because enforcement of the statute is assigned to the New York Attorney General and the statute does not create a private right of action.

Americans with Disabilities Act. The court dismissed Thompson’s Title III claim for lack of standing, meaning he did not show a sufficient continuing connection to seek the requested relief in federal court. Private individuals may seek injunctive relief under Title III but may not obtain damages. Because Thompson no longer lived in the apartment or other housing provided by CRF-Cluster and did not allege that he intended to visit a CRF-Cluster facility in the future, the court found no reasonable basis to infer that he would return. The court therefore did not need to decide whether the apartment or CRF-Cluster’s facilities were places of public accommodation under the ADA.

Fair Housing Act. The court held that Thompson stated claims for race- and disability-based disparate treatment. His allegations that CRF-Cluster pressured him to leave while allowing three Latino occupants to remain longer supported a minimal inference of race discrimination. His allegation that CRF-Cluster pressured occupants receiving supplemental disability benefits to move, while not applying the same pressure to people who could work, supported a disability-discrimination claim. The court dismissed or rejected the familial-status theory at the pleading stage because Thompson did not provide specific facts showing that families like his were treated differently; two other families with children allegedly remained in the housing longer.

The court also allowed Thompson’s Fair Housing Act reasonable-accommodation claim to continue. Thompson alleged that he requested a lower-floor apartment because of his hip osteoarthritis and that CRF-Cluster did not respond for at least a year, despite his repeated inquiries. The court treated the alleged delay as potentially a constructive denial, meaning a denial shown by an unreasonable failure to act rather than an express refusal. The court did not decide whether the later housing offers were reasonable because Thompson alleged that no accommodation had been offered when he filed the lawsuit.

New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. The court allowed these claims to continue because they were based on the same alleged facts as the Fair Housing Act claims, and CRF-Cluster’s only argument for dismissing them depended on dismissal of all of Thompson’s federal claims. The court rejected that argument because the Section 1983, Fair Housing Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims remained pending.

Rehabilitation Act. The court did not rule on the merits of Thompson’s Section 504 claim. CRF-Cluster did not move to dismiss that claim or present arguments for dismissal. The court therefore left the claim pending without deciding whether the allegations concerning CRF-Cluster’s federal financial assistance were sufficient.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted in part and denied in part CRF-Cluster’s motion to dismiss. The claims under New York Education Law § 7704, the Personal Privacy Protection Law, the Social Security Number Protection Law, and the ADA were dismissed. The claims under Section 1983, the Fair Housing Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Rehabilitation Act survived the motion. The court ordered CRF-Cluster to file a responsive pleading by September 4, 2020, and directed the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan and joint status letter by September 11, 2020.