Herriot v. Channing House
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2009 WL 225418 (2009)
Sally Herriot (plaintiff) resided in Channing House (defendant), a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) licensed by the State of California. Channing House provided three levels of care: independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing care. Per California law, Channing House was obligated to monitor the medical condition of residents and to move residents to higher levels of care if a resident’s medical-care needs increased. Herriot was originally medically approved for an independent-living unit. However, after more than a decade at Channing House, Herriot developed dementia, became mostly nonambulatory, and required 24-hour care. Channing House notified Herriot that she was required to move into the assisted-living unit. Herriot refused to move. Instead, Herriot hired her own private caregivers and requested an accommodation from Channing House to be allowed to remain in her independent-living unit with her private caregivers. Channing House refused the requested accommodation. Herriot sued Channing House, arguing that Channing House discriminated against her because of her disabilities and failed to provide reasonable accommodations, in violation of the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Channing House moved for summary adjudication, arguing that (1) it was legally obligated to move Herriot to a higher level of care because of her increased medical needs; and (2) it could not delegate its duty of care to private caregivers. The court granted summary adjudication to Channing House. Herriot moved for reconsideration, and Channing House cross-moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Fogel, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.