Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Bell v. Episcopal Church Home Inc.
No. 2:05-1953-DCN-RSC (D.S.C. July 26, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55910
Description
Resident with Lou Gehrig’s disease Charges that Retirement Home’s Ban on Long-Term Personal Care Attendants in Independent Living Units Violates Federal Disabilities and Fair Housing Laws
Abstract
Plaintiff 80-year-old woman with Lou Gehrig’s disease is
suing defendant continuing care retirement community; plaintiff
claims that defendant’s policies of excluding from its
independent living units people who need assistance with daily
living and of prohibiting long-term use of personal care attendants
violate the Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair
Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et
seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101 et seq. Plaintiff, a resident in one of
defendant’s independent living units, developed Lou
Gehrig’s disease and hired permanent personal attendants to
assist her in daily care. Defendant allows only temporary personal
attendants and informed plaintiff that, because she required daily
care, she no longer met fitness requirements for independent living
and must move into its nursing home facility or vacate. Plaintiff
argues that defendant’s policies unlawfully classify and
segregate residents based on the nature and severity of their
disabilities. Defendant failed, according to plaintiff, to
accommodate her disabilities by refusing to allow her to use
personal care attendants to maintain her independence and quality
of life in the living arrangement of her choice. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to end the
discriminatory policies; she also seeks contract reformation and
monetary damages. A consent agreement reached while litigation is
pendant allows plaintiff to remain in her current living situation.
