JACKSON (LN) — U.S. District Judge Kristi H. Johnson granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment in a Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act dispute between Baptist Homes, Inc. and the City of Madison, Mississippi, finding the city’s 61-day silence on a reasonable accommodation request constituted a constructive denial.
Baptist Homes, a nonprofit providing support services for Mississippians with intellectual and developmental disabilities, purchased a house in the Crescent Landing Subdivision in May 2023 with plans to lease it to four unrelated adults with disabilities. The city’s Director of Community Development wrote to the nonprofit in June 2023, stating the property’s R-1 single-family zoning prohibited multi-family or commercial uses.
Baptist Homes President Ron Morton called the director and later sent a December 2023 letter requesting a reasonable accommodation for the inconsistency between the zoning designation and the intended use. Morton also submitted a rental license application in January 2024.
The city never responded to the accommodation request or the license application. Baptist Homes sued on Feb. 13, 2024, alleging the city hindered its ability to rent the house to people with disabilities.
The city argued the claims were unripe because it had not issued a final decision on the accommodation. Johnson disagreed, noting the city admitted it had no specific written procedures for processing such requests.
Judge Johnson wrote that an “indeterminate delay” in responding to a request for reasonable accommodations qualifies as a denial, citing Fifth Circuit precedent. She found the city’s 61-day silence, during which Baptist Homes made multiple attempts to contact city officials, distinguished the case from simple administrative backlog.
Johnson also rejected the city’s argument that Baptist Homes should have appealed the director’s June 2023 letter or applied for a conditional use permit. She noted that conditional use permits are discretionary and impose restrictions, whereas FHA reasonable accommodations are required by law and allow exceptions to zoning rules.
On the merits, Johnson granted summary judgment for Baptist Homes on two elements of its failure-to-accommodate claim: that the residents have disabilities and that a request was made.
However, she denied summary judgment on the reasonableness and necessity elements, leaving those issues for trial. The city argued the accommodation was unreasonable because it constituted a staffed supervised service program that fundamentally altered the nature of a single-family neighborhood. Baptist Homes provided no summary judgment evidence confirming no neighbors had complained or that the use was compatible with single-family objectives.
Regarding necessity, Johnson found Baptist Homes failed to prove the accommodation was essential. While evidence suggested the residents needed to live in a group to be financially viable through Medicaid waivers, it did not prove they needed to live as a group of four in a way that violated the zoning ordinance’s ban on boarding houses, which are defined as housing three or more people.
Johnson also granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on punitive damages, ruling that municipalities are immune from such awards under the FHA. Baptist Homes abandoned its argument on this point by failing to respond to the city’s brief.
The case proceeds to trial on the remaining issues.