SoCal Recovery, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa

Under the ADA, FHA, or FEHA,  “actual disability” may be established by showing an impairment which “substantially limits” the ability to engage in “major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 3602(h), 12102(1); see Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (Persons recovering from drug and alcohol addictions are protected from housing discrimination.). On appeal, the panel held that sober living homes may satisfy the “actual disability” inquiry on a collective basis, by offering evidence of admission criteria and house policies. See Rohr v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 555 F.3d 850, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2009). Reversed.

The City denied Appellant’s application for reasonable accommodation following amendments to its zoning code, which began regulation of existing and future “sober living homes,” and required a 650-foot distance between said homes. Costa Mesa Mun. Code §§ 14-13, 13-311(a)(15). In district court, the City’s motion for summary judgment was granted against Appellant’s housing discrimination claims because they did not show on an individualized basis that their residents were actually disabled. Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq. Under the ADA, FHA, or FEHA,  “actual disability” may be established by showing an impairment which “substantially limits” the ability to engage in “major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 3602(h), 12102(1); see Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (Persons recovering from drug and alcohol addictions are protected from housing discrimination.). On appeal, the panel held that sober living homes may satisfy the “actual disability” inquiry on a collective basis, by offering evidence of admission criteria and house policies. See Rohr v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 555 F.3d 850, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2009). Reversed.