Anna has painted me as aggressive, harassing, threatening, and hostile. But if that were true, she should have evicted me — instead, she was forcing me to stay. Anna was kind and responsive to me prior to my accommodation request. I went beyond what is required as a tenant to help resolve the situation. I even did a free Human Design and Astrology reading for her and her dog. I only mention this because of her countersuit. The irony is that even the stars tried to warn her — I just didn’t know at the time it was directly involving me.
She consistently thanked me for helping and for keeping her in the loop. She even bought me a gift in appreciation. That’s why this was so distressing — she didn’t just misrepresent the property; she misrepresented who she was. As I’ve made clear in previous lessons, this is something I struggle to understand.
Informing her of my next steps was not a threat. It was transparency. It shows I made a good faith effort to communicate even while my rights were being violated and I was under duress. Details matter in these situations, especially when communication is manipulated to fit one’s own narrative. I also did it to prevent her from using the excuse that she had no idea I was upset or planning to act — a card she had played so many times before.
On a sidenote, I believe the neighboring tenants no longer live at the property and I have redacted their names and related information to protect their privacy.
42 U.S.C. § 3604. Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices
(f)(3)(B) 3) For purposes of this subsection, discrimination includes—
(A) a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.2
(B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; or
(C) in connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after the date that is 30 months after September 13, 1988, a failure to design and construct those dwellings in such a manner that—
(i) the public use and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons;
(ii) all the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by handicapped persons in wheelchairs; and
(iii) all premises within such dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design:
(I) an accessible route into and through the dwelling;
(II) light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations;
(III) reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and
(IV) usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.
24 CFR 100.204. Reasonable accommodations.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a handicapped person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit, including public and common use areas.
(b) The application of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example (1): A blind applicant for rental housing wants live in a dwelling unit with a seeing eye dog. The building has a no pets policy. It is a violation of § 100.204 for the owner or manager of the apartment complex to refuse to permit the applicant to live in the apartment with a seeing eye dog because, without the seeing eye dog, the blind person will not have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Example (2): Progress Gardens is a 300 unit apartment complex with 450 parking spaces which are available to tenants and guests of Progress Gardens on a first come first served basis. John applies for housing in Progress Gardens. John is mobility impaired and is unable to walk more than a short distance and therefore requests that a parking space near his unit be reserved for him so he will not have to walk very far to get to his apartment. It is a violation of § 100.204 for the owner or manager of Progress Gardens to refuse to make this accommodation. Without a reserved space, John might be unable to live in Progress Gardens at all or, when he has to park in a space far from his unit, might have great difficulty getting from his car to his apartment unit. The accommodation therefore is necessary to afford John an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The accommodation is reasonable because it is feasible and practical under the circumstances.