Boykin, a T7 paraplegic, toured units at the 279-unit property in 2024 and alleged he experienced stigmatization, frustration, indignation, and emotional distress due to design flaws. He cited nearly twenty examples of violations, including bathroom layouts that prevented wheelchair maneuvering and kitchen countertops installed too high.
Defendants, including Marquette Management and various developers and constructors, argued Boykin lacked standing under the Supreme Court's TransUnion decision, which tightened requirements for concrete injury in statutory violation cases. They contended that mere statutory violations without tangible harm are insufficient for Article III standing.
Judge Ellis held that Boykin sufficiently alleged an injury in fact. The court reasoned that the emotional distress and stigmatization caused by discriminatory housing practices constitute concrete harms recognized under Seventh Circuit precedent, distinguishing this case from prior rulings where plaintiffs alleged only statutory violations without personal impact.
The court further found the injury fairly traceable to the defendants, who designed, constructed, and own the property, and that a favorable ruling would redress the harm. Although the court noted that intent to rent is legally irrelevant to standing, Boykin alleged he is "in the market" for an apartment in the neighborhood and "expects to return" once the barriers are remediated to "pursue a potential rental of an apartment," satisfying the requirement for imminent future harm.
The decision allows Boykin's third amended complaint to proceed to discovery, resolving a post-TransUnion question regarding whether a wheelchair user who tours a property can establish standing for FHA violations based on allegations of stigmatization and emotional distress from encountering accessibility barriers.