Austin v. Town of Farmington
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
826 F.3d 622, cert. denied, 167 S. Ct. 298 (2016)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Colleen and John Austin (plaintiffs) purchased a house in the Town of Farmington (the town) (defendant). The house was located on a designated lot called a patio lot. The town had an ordinance restricting the use of patio lots like the Austins’ including a prohibition on accessory structures, such as pools and fences. The Austins’ son had multiple serious disabilities, including cerebral palsy, so they wanted to install a pool for aquatic therapy and a fence for safety. The Austins requested a variance for permission to build the pool and fence from the town. The town passed a resolution that granted the Austins permission to construct their accessory structures. The resolution contained a restoration requirement that the Austins must completely remove, at their expense, the fence and pool within 21 days of the disabled child ceasing to reside at the property. The Austins constructed the pool and fence. Years later, the Austins filed suit, challenging the restoration provision and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its enforcement. The Austins alleged that the town’s denial of a reasonable modification was discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The district court dismissed the Austins’ complaint because the Austins failed to provide any evidence of discriminatory intent. The Austins appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Winter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.