City Wide Associates v. Penfield
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
409 Mass. 140, 564 N.E. 2d 1003 (1991)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Eleanor Penfield (defendant) was a tenant in a federal housing project run by City Wide Associates (landlord) (plaintiff). Penfield was 77 years old and suffered from a mental disability that caused her to hear auditory hallucinations. Penfield’s lease prohibited any defacement or damaging of the property, and the landlord could charge up to two months of rent payments for any tenant-caused damages. Penfield began to hear voices in the apartment walls and threw objects, tossed water, and hit the walls with sticks and brooms. Penfield caused around $500 in damages, which was less than a one-month rental payment. The landlord began an eviction proceeding against Penfield in Massachusetts state housing court. As a defense, Penfield argued that the landlord’s attempted eviction constituted disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. Penfield suggested pausing all eviction steps to allow her to attend a mental-health program. The lower court agreed that Penfield’s suggestion was a reasonable accommodation and that the landlord violated the Rehabilitation Act by not providing the accommodation and by continuing eviction proceedings. The landlord appealed, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court chose to transfer the case from the appellate court. The court reviewed the lower court’s decision on whether the landlord was obligated to accommodate Penfield’s disability and allow her continued residence despite her violation of the lease’s damage provision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.