By Guest Blogger Bryan Greene, General Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
I am back with you today to talk about the recent settlement reached in United States of America v. Millikin University, an important case concerning university housing and a student with disabilities. In my previous Disability.Blog posts on May 3, 2010 and January 19, 2011, I discussed in some detail reasonable accommodations under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHAct). While I did not address university housing in those posts, the Millikin case makes clear that the fair housing protections of persons with disabilities do not end at the university gates.
Please realize that this dispute ended with a settlement rather than a trial. Therefore, there were no judicial findings of fact or conclusions of law, and there was no final judgment. The United States did present allegations, and these allegations are set forth here, but the University denied these allegations and denied liability. The settlement states that "no judicial findings have been made as to the allegations of the Complaint or the issue of liability, and nothing herein should be construed or represented otherwise." Still, the point remains: the Fair Housing Act’s reach extends to university housing.
The Millikin Case
The Millikin case involves a student with legal blindness and epilepsy who was accepted to Millikin University, a coed, independent four-year university in Decatur, Ill., for the fall semester of 2004. On her freshman housing application, the student requested a “quiet” dormitory, because noisy environments worsened her epileptic seizures. She also informed the housing supervisor that she planned on obtaining a specially-trained, seizure-alert dog that would live with her on campus, to which no objection was raised.
Despite her request, she was assigned a room in a noisy area and her seizures worsened. She asked for a transfer to a quieter room, and in the fall of 2005, Millikin transferred her to Oakland, a dormitory which met her disability-related needs, and her seizures lessened. In January 2006, the student informed the housing supervisor that her seizure-alert dog was ready to be delivered to her. Millikin officials responded that she could not live in Oakland with her service dog, because it would adversely affect other students, and offered her a room in another dorm. However, this room did not meet her disability-related needs.
Since Millikin refused to allow the dog to stay with the student in Oakland and did not provide an alternative room that met her needs, she remained at Oakland and her dog was transported back and forth daily from her parents’ home to campus. In February 2006, the student brought her dog to her dorm room and Millikin staff quickly forced her and the dog to leave and wait outside until her parents arrived to take the animal.
Thereafter, she commuted to classes for three weeks until a mediation was held in an attempt to resolve the matter. Still, Millikin officials refused to allow the student to live in Oakland with her service animal. The student then accepted Millikin’s offer of a room at Hessler Hall, so she could return to campus with her dog. But again, the room was unsuitable; it was adjacent to a recreation room in which loud, late-night Ping-Pong matches were frequently held. In addition, there were vending machines, located on the other side of her dorm room wall in the recreation room, which were frequently slammed and kicked. After two weeks of worsening seizures, she filed a fair housing complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
In September 2009, after a complex, three-year investigation, HUD charged Millikin University with violating the Fair Housing Act, on the grounds that Millikin made [a dwelling] unavailable, denied a student a dwelling because of her disability and refused to make a reasonable accommodation in its rules and practices when it was necessary to afford the student an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The U.S. Department of Justice filed an action against Millikin in November 2009, and a settlement between the parties was recorded in federal district court on January 11, 2011.
Under the settlement, Millikin must state in all of its written or training materials for housing employees that it is unlawful to refuse reasonable accommodations when they may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This case highlights the provision of the statute that allows a landlord to assert "a danger to the health or safety of others;" in this case, the University argued that other students in Oakland Hall who were sensitive to and allergic to dogs, and the question was whether this amounted to a genuine danger and whether there was a solution to this potential concern. As such, this settlement requires the training to state that it is unlawful to discriminate in the rental of housing to any student with a disability, unless the tenancy would pose a danger to the health or safety of others or result in substantial damage to property.
Finally, as part of the settlement, Millikin agreed to reimburse the student the $4,437 in expenses she incurred as a result of the move she made to Hessler Hall.
United States of America v. Millikin University highlights the principle that under the FHAct, university housing must be provided and administered to persons with disabilities in a non-discriminatory manner – in other words, fair housing does not stop where the campus begins.
HUD stands ready to enforce the fair housing rights of people with disabilities wherever such violations should occur. Please share this article with any students with disabilities who reside in, or plan to reside in, university housing, as well as their parents, friends and advocates.
To file a fair housing complaint, visit http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_discrimination.
Additional Information:
- HUD’s Charge of Discrimination against Millikin University
- Department of Justice Consent Order
- The Fair Housing Act
Bryan Greene is the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In this position, he is charged with overseeing the policy direction and operational management of this 600-person office. Under his leadership, HUD has pursued large-scale high-profile cases that address systemic discrimination and provide widespread relief. Mr. Greene has devoted his professional career to fighting housing discrimination and promoting diverse, inclusive communities.
I see a day in the very near future where online education is recognized to be as equal as on-campus education. If someone is disabled, they no longer need to feel as if they are at a disadvantage, In fact, most adult learners prefer to go online. Online education levels the playing field. Look at the military veteran population as an example, something like 80% of them prefer to go to college online.
The cost of on-site education is getting out of control, I agree with that statement, most families cannot afford to pay for that, and it’s getting to the point that the federal government can’t afford it either. What is the answer? The cost of making buildings handicap accessible and special learning aids are a bit high in most cases. Using the internet can keep that cost down significantly. As a product of online education, I don’t feel that I gained anything from my short few years on a college campus, rather I gained more from doing it from home, while I worked and was forced to set timelines and have self discipline. I say let’s not spend time and money finding a way to support an already failing system, let’s find a way to use technology to help all those who may have a problem getting to a college campus or learning, seeing, hearing, reading, etc. I hate to sound like a geek, but technology seems to be the answer to most of our problems in life.
Geek out.
Lute, Director of Operations and Technology
American College of Technology
If you look at the taxes on some of the houses in some states, they are really off on the prices. They are not thinking of a disabled person, like HUD. THE FIRST THING THEY SAY IS YOU NEED MORE MONEY TO GET ANY HELP FROM THEM, SO THEY DON’T REALLY HELP THE DISABLED ANYWAY. AND FOR THE FHA, YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT A BOOK TO GET A HOUSE. AND IF THERE ARE SPEECH AND COM. DIFFICULTIES, YOU CAN’T GET HELP THAT WAY, LIKE ME, WITH 5 STROKES. IT WASN’T MY FAULT. IT’S FROM THE HEART VALVES, LIKE THE ONE I HAVE. I HAVE A 3/4 METAL VALVE AND THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT. ANYWAY, I WANT SOME HELP TO GET A HOUSE SO ALL MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS CAN COME LIVE WITH ME. THEY CAN COME SPEND SOME TIME WITH ME AND MY GRANDKIDS WANT TO COME BE WITH ME AND I WOULD LOVE TO SPEND TIME WITH THEM AND HELP THEM THOUGH SCHOOL IF I CAN, BUT THE GOV – I HAVE SEEN NO RESPONSE FROM THEM.
I applaud the student as well. I have epilepsy also and I recently filed a fair housing complaint against my condo association in IL. I have been harassed and discriminated against by other condo owners in my building for four years, which caused me a lot of stress. Rather than living in such a stressful environment and continually worrying about having a seizure, I finally decided to move out of my condo to sell it. I requested the right to rent my unit until I sold it since I could no longer live there and the condo board denied my request, with no legitimate reason why they denied me this right. The board received a letter from my neurologist recommending I move out because of my health condition of epilepsy, but they had no regard for my health and safety and denied my request again. Not only do they want to see me suffer mentally or physically, they want me to suffer financially as well.
For those who do not know what it’s like to have epilepsy, they need to understand a seizure can occur at any time and could cost a person their LIFE. I almost lost my life in a car accident because of a seizure while driving and I will not let that happen again in my condo if I were to have a seizure and fall down a flight of stairs. I don’t understand why so many people are so discriminative and also have no sympathy for people with epilepsy. Certain accomodations need to be made for people with epilepsy to help them live a normal life like everyone else!
It is this student’s right to live on campus and in the least restrictive environment for her. Living on campus is an experience that many, many desire, and regardless of finnancial need, all should be given if they choose it. Her seizure alert dog, as a trained service animal, is also legally allowed to share her living space. As long as the dog is not vicious or a hazard to others, s/he is permitted in the dorm. I am glad she was compensated, as I imagine this is an emotionally taxing situation, and I applaude HUD for respecting and honoring her situation. Coodos!
I really applaud the student for taking action. I’m an artist and disabled. I joined an art organization. They had no wheelchair access, so I purchased at my own expense a ramp that I had made at Home Depot, but still the problem was not solved because the ramp was not affixed to the floor and would slide. When I mentioned the need for safe and adequate wheelchair access, they just gave me a dirty look. Finally, I quit the group, contacted the Better Business Bureau, and demanded a full refund of my membership fee. My membership fee was refunded and the BBB has a record of the complaint, but I doubt they will ever install wheelchair access until someone forces them to. It amazes me how insensitive people are to the handicapped.
I worked as an apartment manager and dealt with some Section 8 applications. The majority of these voucher recipients did not even have the physical voucher on hand and were misinformed as to what it physically and literally was. One tragic experience involved a Russian single mother with a severe language barrier. Section 8 may need many reforms, but something needs to be done specifically in regard to the expiration policy. There are people who receive the voucher and fall through the cracks anyway. They run out of time to look for and find housing for a number of reasons – being unable to speak or understand English, not having a translator, lack of transportation, lack of a babysitter, suffering abuse at the time one holds the voucher, discouragement from Section 8 bureaucracy itself, severe depression, physical impairment (almost left that one out), felonies, and past evictions barring many options, lack of funds to search for an apartment, experiencing Section 8 for the first time and simply not understanding what the next step is. I, and most recipients, are under the impression that once the voucher expires, the person AND THEIR CHILDREN, must then return to the end of the line and DO IT AGAIN. This apparently is not the entire truth, but it is universally accepted anyway. This pass-around reveals a lack of accomplishment, a failure to fulfill the basic purpose of the voucher system. People who have let their voucher expire for countless reasons often give up, for the hoops are tiring. What they need is a BETTER PLAN to REALIZE housing. I feel that the policies NEED to reflect this, this is one more leg of social services that can PREVENT CHILD HOMELESSNESS and different kinds of domestic abuse. Thank you for reading. I don’t think people even know they make exceptions at all. I never did until I went to their site.
Why shouldn’t the university make this student’s life easier while she is trying to make a difference in her life and possibly the lives of others?
However, I am confused with some of the HUD laws, what is required and what’s not! I have a son with a disability and when he was trying to seek housing through the section 8 program or a section 8 based housing complex he was denied based on his credit score. Now help me to understand this, here we are living in hard economicial times and the govenrment wants to deny housing based on bad credit when there are so many people that are now losing their homes due to lack of employment and those that have lost or losing their jobs! This picture is WRONG, I look at people that hold these political positions and see that they don’t have this problem therefore they are not willing to fight for those who are in this position.
I hate that we vote for these men and women who make FALSE promises, so if you ask me not only is the university not fair but there is no one you can look to for help and this is so sad, who can we trust?
SOMEDAY, DENNIS M., YOU MAY BE IN THAT POSITION. DON’T SAY IT WON’T HAPPEN, BECAUSE IT DOES, EVERYDAY.
SHE DID NOT ASKED TO BE HANDICAPPED, LIVING ON CAMPUS TOOK THE BURDEN OFF HER PARENTS.
HOW CAN YOU BE SO INSENSITIVE TO SOMEONE ELSE’S PROBLEMS & NEEDS?
I’M NOT WISHING YOU BAD LUCK, BUT MAYBE SOMEDAY YOU’LL UNDERSTAND. MAYBE SOONER THAN YOU THINK!
JOE D.
Though disabled personally, I find it despicable that an entire housing unit be altered to suit the needs of this particular individual. If the “victim” is in such dire straits, how is it that her parents can daily transport her “epilepsy dog”? Why does the young lady feel the need to live on campus at all? If her parents can make the daily dog transport, it would seem they could provide the young lady with housing AND the daily transport of the “victim” to class each day. It would be interesting to find out the source of funding for this young lady’s on campus housing. I wonder if yet another “victims advocate group” is providing funding for this individual’s housing on campus and am interested in the ultimate source of funds for this housing. I think this lady is asking an awful lot of the taxpaying public. One would think that the stresses of filing suit would be yet another source of aggravation of this young woman’s condition if indeed she has a noise and stress related problem at all. We all need to be as self sufficient as possible. I would suggest that the young lady see to her own housing which would allow her the free range use of her “epilepsy dog” at will. One also must question the costs associated with bringing legal action against the University. Surely these funds could better be utilized in providing funding for those that are truly in need of funding and by all appearances, this young lady has the means available to house herself off campus and obtain transportation to class on her own dime rather than the dime of the taxpayer. Think of the costs she has already wasted in her quest for the unneeded “specialty housing”.
HUD IS GUARNISHING MY SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY. I CANNOT PURCHASE MY MEDICATION. I AM DISABLED AND LEGALLY BLIND. I NOW HAVE SOUTHERN ARIZONA LEGAL AID AND CONGRESSWOMAN GIFFORDS OFFICE TRYING TO HELP ME. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO.THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS.