Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Department

352 F.3d 565 (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Department

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
352 F.3d 565 (2003)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Beverly Tsombanidis (plaintiff) purchased a house in West Haven, Connecticut, to operate a sober house (Oxford House) for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. Tsombanidis leased the house to at least six unrelated individuals recovering from addiction. Neighbors, and at least one city official, were concerned about the presence of the Oxford House and expressed hostility toward the Oxford House. At least one person complained to the city that Tsombanidis was operating an illegal boarding house. The city told Tsombanidis that the Oxford House violated the zoning ordinance, and the fire inspector told her that the house was in violation of the fire code. However, the city rarely took enforcement action against boarding houses in residential areas. Tsombanidis sued the city and the West Haven Fire Department (defendants) and alleged that they were violating the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by intentionally discriminating against the Oxford House residents, implementing policies that disparately impacted the residents, and failing to make reasonable accommodations. The district court held that the intentional-discrimination claim against the city, but not against the fire department, could proceed to trial; that the disparate-impact claims could proceed to trial; but that the reasonable-accommodation claims were not ripe. Tsombanidis then applied to the city for a special-use exception to operate as a single-family dwelling, which was denied. The deputy fire marshal later indicated that the Oxford House would be treated as a single-family dwelling under the fire code, so previous notices of violations could be disregarded going forward. Regarding the claims against the city, the district court held that the city had intentionally discriminated against the Oxford House, that the zoning ordinance disparately impacted the residents of the Oxford House, and that the city failed to reasonably accommodate the residents. The city appealed the intentional-discrimination and reasonable-accommodation claims.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wesley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 816,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership