Summary
In a 2003 legal proceeding, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the city of West Haven did not violate the Fair Housing Act (FHA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court's decision was based on the plaintiffs' failure to provide evidence of either intentional discrimination or a disparate impact resulting from the application of fire codes to a sober living facility.
Summary
In a 2003 legal proceeding, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the city of West Haven had not infringed upon the Fair Housing Act (FHA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This determination was made because the plaintiffs were unable to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate either intentional discrimination or a disparate impact stemming from the enforcement of fire safety regulations at a residential facility designated for individuals in recovery, often known as a sober living home. The court's decision indicated that the application of these codes did not constitute discriminatory action under the statutes cited.
Summary
In a 2003 legal case, the Second Circuit Court ruled that West Haven did not violate the Fair Housing Act (FHA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This decision was made because the people who filed the lawsuit could not prove that West Haven intentionally discriminated against residents or that applying fire safety rules to a sober living home led to an unfair disadvantage for them.
Summary
In a court case from 2003, a court decided that the city of West Haven did not break fair housing or disability laws. This was because the people who sued could not show that the city treated them unfairly on purpose. They also could not show that when fire safety rules were used for a home where people recovering from addiction lived, the rules had an unfair effect.