C O N F I D E N T I A L

Improper Revocation
of a Disabled Tenants Section 8
o!sin" S!bsid# b# t$e A!"!sta
%&aine' o!sin" A!t$orit#
Prepared by: Eli A. Blackhouse (formerly Benjamin Turner)
For: Attorney aniel Buck
Finish date: !une "#$ %&&'
(i)ned:
Pa)e " of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Part I: Narrative
The matter involves the improper termination o !en"amin
T#rner$s %ection & ederal ho#sin' s#(sid) () the *#'#sta
+o#sin' *#thorit) ,-*+*./. The a#thorit) administers the 0ederal
%ection & ho#sin' s#(sid) pro'ram or residents o central 1aine
towns in their "#risdiction.
*s their premises at 33 2nion %treet are (oth 'enerall)
inaccessi(le to the disa(led pop#lation and inaccessi(le to the
complainant 'iven speciic eat#res o his disa(ilit)3 1r. T#rner
re4#ested an alternative to havin' to enter the *+* oices to si'n
ho#sin'5related paperwor6. The *+* sho#ld have readil) 'ranted
this reasona(le accommodation re4#est () oerin' to meet with
1r. T#rner at an o5site location or () mailin' an) necessar)
s#(sid)5related paperwor6 to his residence rather than re4#irin'
him to si'n s#ch paperwor6 on5site.
+owever3 rather than accommodate 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit)3
the *+* predicated his ri'ht to participate in his %ection & ho#sin'
s#(sid) on #lillment o e7cl#sionar) medical re4#irements. %#ch
conditions compromised ederal law mandatin' an easil) o(tained
reasona(le accommodation and interered with 1r. T#rner$s
disa(ilit) ri'hts3 as speciic eat#res o his disa(ilit) prevents him
rom (ein' a(le to interact with doctors.
*ter he made the initial reasona(le accommodation
re4#est3 the *+* (e'an to write letters and place telephone calls to
1r. T#rner which contained e7cessive medical directives and
incl#ded mischaracteri8ations o his eort to avoid s#ch medical
harassment as a ail#re -to cooperate.. *ll o these conditions
served to a'itate his relationship with his landlord3 as it rendered
the contin#ed provision o *+* s#(sid) dis(#rsements to 1r. L as
a ten#o#s arran'ement the a#thorit) wo#ld readil) terminate i 1r.
T#rner declined to ore'o his ri'ht to accessi(le participation.
The *+*$s re#sal to mail him the re4#ired ann#al %ection
& recertiication orms as a reasona(le accommodation res#lted in
the revocation o his ho#sin' s#(sid)3 eective *#'#st 13 20053 as
Pa)e % of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
1r. T#rner had not (een a(le to si'n standard recertiication orms
witho#t the accommodation. 2pon receivin' termination
notiication3 he immediatel) iled a 'rievance3 at which point
+earin' 9icer :atherine *#stin #rther violated his ri'hts ()
repeatedl) attemptin' to have him s#(mit to a medical e7amination
as a condition o cond#ctin' the hearin' at his home.
;hen his disa(ilit) prevented him rom #lillin' these
deterrin' and non5 *<*5compliant medical re4#irements3 1s.
*#stin stated that to contin#e to receive his s#(sid)3 he wo#ld have
to s#(mit to an at5home meetin'3 #rther speci)in' that the
meetin' wo#ld not occ#r as #lillment o his re4#est or a
reasona(le accommodation. This re4#irement (oth violated 1r.
T#rner$s ri'ht to have his disa(ilit) reco'ni8ed and accommodated
= on that occasion and on #t#re occasions = and lent an
intimidatin' tim(re to the mandator) home5meetin' that wo#ld
ens#e in place o an ac6nowled'ed accommodation.
9nce at his home3 +earin' 9icer :atherine *#stin
re#sed to address 1r. T#rner$s complaints re'ardin' accessi(ilit)3
the *+*$s pattern o ille'all) re4#irin' medical e7aminations3 and
the revocation o his s#(sid) as a conse4#ence o his ina(ilit) to
participate in s#ch e7aminations. *ter the meetin'3 despite havin'
promised to contin#e to pa) his %ection & s#(sid)3 the *+*
discontin#ed doin' so3 a(r#ptl) stoppin' pa)ments to his landlord
in 9cto(er3 2005. *s the *+* terminated his (eneit witho#t
noti)in' him in advance3 he did not discover that the *+* had
stopped pa)ments to his landlord #ntil 1r. L notiied him that the
a#thorit) had not mailed their portion o the rent to the landlord$s
home. The *+*$s re#sal to provide deinitive written notiication
that the) were proceedin' with s#(sid) termination violated
ederal re'#lations
i
and also ca#sed the landlord to attempt to evict
1r. T#rner ,on 9cto(er 313 20053 as a direct res#lt o the missin'
*+* pa)ment/.
%hortl) ater discoverin' that the *+* had stopped
pa)ments to his landlord3 1r. T#rner detailed his complaint in a
written letter and mailed it to the !oston +2< 9ice3 also
re4#estin' that the re'ional (ranch compel the *+* to reinstate
his s#(sid). %everal wee6s later3 the written response he received
Pa)e + of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
oered onl) a hollow reiteration o the *+*$s misrepresentation
o events and incl#ded the statement that the *+* had terminated
his (eneits (eca#se 1r. T#rner had ailed to #lill medical
re4#irements3 which the !oston +2< 9ice a#ltil) and
discriminatoril) descri(ed as havin' (een amon' standard tenant
o(li'ations. The letter i'nored wholesale his central assertion that
the *+* had terminated his ho#sin' s#(sid) during the course of
deterring his participation by deliberately exploiting both his
disability and the reasonable accommodation process.
+e a(andoned additional eorts to re5esta(lish the s#(sid)
when he reali8ed that (oth the *+* and the !oston +2< 9ice
had misrepresented several 6e) elements re'ardin' his complaint.
Pa)e , of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
PART II: Analysis of AHA Malfeasance
(ection ": -edical .arassment /as 0sed
to Block Tenant1s Administrati2e
Participation
The *+* violated laws relative to reasona(le
accommodation d#rin' two separate periods o time.
The irst violation occ#rred when the) ailed to provide a
deinitive response to 1r. T#rner$s initial re4#est or reasona(le
accommodation3 which he had made directl) to the *+*$s
director3 >ictoria ;at6ins. The *+*$s ail#re to act on his initial
re4#est led to the revocation o the s#(sid)3 as3 witho#t the
accommodation3 he co#ld not #lill standard o(li'ations relative to
re5certiication.
The *+* additionall) violated his disa(ilit) ri'hts ater
1r. T#rner iled the 'rievance re'ardin' s#(sid) termination3 at
which point 1s. *#stin attempted to re4#ire 1r. T#rner to s#(mit
to a medical e7amination as a condition o #lillin' his re4#est to
have the termination5related hearin' cond#cted osite ,and not in
the inaccessi(le *+* oices/.
!oth the s#(sid) termination and the hearin' relative to the
same wo#ld have (een avoided had the AHA simply mailed the
relevant re-certification paperwork to Mr. Turner when he
requested that they do so. ?rovidin' s#ch an accommodation on
(oth occasions was their responsi(ilit) accordin' to +2< anti5
discrimination and accessi(ilit) r#les
ii
and the *mericans with
<isa(ilities *ct.
<espite their repeated claims to the contrar)3 no re'#lation
precl#ded the *+* rom accommodatin' him osite in the
a(sence o a medical e7amination3 and his re4#ested
accommodation not to have to enter the premises sho#ld have (een
Pa)e # of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
readil) 'ranted without a speciic medical dispensation 55 on (oth
occasions 55 or the ollowin' seven ,7/ reasons:
1. The nature of -r. Turner1s disability pre2ented him
from interactin) 3ith doctors. Their attempts to re4#ire
him to interact with a ph)sician did not ta6e into acco#nt
that his disa(ilit) prevented him rom doin' so. %ince his
disa(ilit)5related s)mptoms wo#ld have (een e7acer(ated
() a medical e7amination3 he co#ld not interact with
doctors or the p#rpose o eval#atin' his disa(ilit).
1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit) is so advanced that the %ocial
%ec#rit) *dministration event#all) decided to contin#e to
pa) his %%<@ (eneit despite his inability to participate in a
medical review3 a concl#sion that pres#ma(l)
ac6nowled'ed that medical testin' had (een re#sed () 1r.
T#rner or 'ood ca#se.
@n li'ht o the %%*$s decision3 the *+*$s re#sal to
accommodate 1r. T#rner i he did not participate in a
medical e7amination meant that d#rin' the time in which
he attempted to have his disa(ilit) accommodated () the
*+*3 the ederal 'overnment was sim#ltaneo#sl)
ac6nowled'in' that 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit) prevented him
rom meetin' with doctors ,through the A/ while
re4#irin' him to meet with doctors to contin#e to receive
his disa(led ho#sin' (eneit ,through the AHA/.
2. The A.A already possessed sufficient e2idence of the
need to accommodate -r. Turner1s disability. 1r.
T#rner had alread) provided credi(le attestation re'ardin'
his disa(ilit) d#rin' the initial re4#est he made with 1s.
;at6ins. *dditionall)3 his 6nown stat#s as a disa(led %%<@
recipient sho#ld have constit#ted ade4#ate proo o his
ri'ht to reasona(le accommodation3 as the *+* was aware
that the 'overnment had alread) declared him #ll)
disa(led #nder ederal '#idelines.
3. 4e5uirin) an unnecessary medical e6amination in
ad2ance of pro2idin) accommodation denied the
Pa)e 7 of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
complainant the opportunity to attest to his disability8
related needs. That 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit) was considered
non5e7istent witho#t third5part) veriication serio#sl)
#ndermined 1r. T#rner$s ri'ht to (e considered the (est
descri(er o his disa(ilit)5related accommodation needs.
iii
The *+*$s re4#irement o a medical e7amination even
'iven the presence o evidence speciicall) listed as
accepta(le in +2<$s reasona(le accommodation polic)
,e.'.3 that he received %%<@/ discriminatoril) represented
that disa(led individ#als are prone to misrepresent or not
#nderstand their disa(ilit)5related needs.
A. The total effect of their procedural and administrati2e
efforts pre2ented -r. Turner1s participation in his
housin) subsidy. ;hen considered collectivel)3 (oth the
*+*$s speciic proced#ral inractions and their repeated
attempts to compel #na#thori8ed medical e7aminations
violated the overarchin' ederal strict#re directin' p#(lic
ho#sin' a#thorities not to -deeat or s#(stantiall) impair
the accomplishment o the o("ectives o the recipient$s
ederall) assisted pro'ram..
iv

*s their com(ined actions precl#ded his participation3 the)
were re4#ired to alter these actions and policies to
accommodate him. !) contin#in' their e7cessive demands
and presentin' local protocols as imm#ta(le re4#irements
(earin' more strin'enc) than ederal law3 the *+* made
the ho#sin' process adversarial instead o oc#sin' = per
re'#lator) directive = on how (est to accommodate 1r.
T#rner.
5. The A.A 3as obli)ated to accommodate him offsite in
the first place because ++ 0nion (treet is not )enerally
accessible to the disabled. The *+* sho#ld not have
re4#ired 1r. T#rner to s#(mit written applications ,in the
orm o medical review orms/ to (e accommodated at an
osite location as the) had the (#rden3 as a participatin'
?+*3 to provide a meetin' area accessi(le to disa(led
individ#als in the irst place.
v

Pa)e ' of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
6. .is ri)ht to the off8site accommodation should not ha2e
been represented as contin)ent upon their appro2al.
The *+*$s demand that 1r. T#rner s#(mit to #nnecessar)
medical e7aminations s#''ested their (elie that local
policies are not s#(ordinate to the *<*
vi
and represented
1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit) ri'hts as #ltimatel) contin'ent #pon
*+* approval.
1r. T#rner$s ri'ht to the re4#ested reasona(le
accommodation was an inaliena(le ederal ri'ht: it did not
re4#ire a medical e7amination or additional application or
ri'hts. 2nder no circ#mstances sho#ld the *+* have
represented that his disa(ilit) ri'hts re4#ired ph)sician
approval3 third5part) veriication3 or -approval () the
ho#sin' a#thorit). ,as stated in their written
correspondence to him d#rin' this time/. +is ederal ri'ht
to disa(ilit)5related accommodations prevailed in the
a(sence o completed local orms or medical e7amination.
vii
7. Their tacit intention 3as to discoura)e -r. Turner
from continuin) to e6ercise his disability ri)hts. Their
oc#s sho#ld have (een on s#ccess#l administration o the
ho#sin' (eneit or 1r. T#rner as a disa(led tenant
viii
and
not on locatin' reasons to e7cl#de him. +e had no
o(li'ation to #lill an) re4#irements = medical or
otherwise = ostensi(l) to a#thori8e an osite meetin' that
was3 in act3 illegally intended to discourage him from
exercising his disability rights.
A re5uired alternati2e disability accommodation 3as ne2er
offered
Bven had the *+* (een #na(le to accommodate his initial
re4#est3 (oth the *mericans with <isa(ilities *ct and +2<
re'#lations wo#ld still have re4#ired them to -ta6e an) other
action. to ens#re that -to the ma7im#m e7tent possi(le. he wo#ld
receive the -(eneits and services. o the +2<5assisted pro'ram.
i7
* irst5attempt ail#re or the two parties to ind a s#ita(le
disa(ilit)5related accommodation sho#ld not have (een constr#ed
as ca#se to discontin#e the s#(sid). 9n the contrar)3 i the *+*
Pa)e 9 of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
had not (een a(le to #lill 1r. T#rner$s reasona(le
accommodation re4#est ,and this was not the case/3 said
re'#lations wo#ld have constrained them to oer an alternative
accommodation! at which point 1r. T#rner sho#ld have had the
opport#nit) to assess whether the alternative accommodation
oered wo#ld have s#ita(l) accommodated his disa(ilit) in lie# o
the one he initiall) re4#ested.
7

The *+* made no s#ch additional mandator)
accommodation eorts.
Pa)e * of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
(ection %: The A.A :ommitted
Termination8 and .earin)84elated
;iolations
*s descri(ed in the irst section o this doc#ment3 ()
imposin' a prohi(itive medical review as a condition o mailin'
him necessar) paperwor6 or holdin' an osite meetin'3 the *+*
(loc6ed him rom #lillin' standard o(li'ations. The) then #sed
the #n#lilled standard o(li'ation to "#sti) revo6in' his s#(sid).
The revocation ca#sed 1r. T#rner to ile a 'rievance3 at which
point the *+* renewed its eort to deter 1r. T#rner$s
participation () re4#irin' a medical e7amination as a condition o
holdin' the hearin' relative to the 'rievance in an accessi(le
location.
Subsection A:
The AHA improperly converted the complainants riht to
reasonable accommodation and fair participation into a
deterrin administrative process
1s. *#stin$s repeated directives to the contrar) o ederal
law and +2< re'#lations promoted 1r. T#rner$s (elie that the
*+* wo#ld invent administrative loopholes to remove him rom
the pro'ram i the) chose to do so ,e.'.3 i he contin#ed to
complain a(o#t inaccessi(ilit)/. @ndeed3 the) had alread) e7ploited
his disa(ilit) when the) (loc6ed him rom #lillin' standard
o(li'ations () administerin' a reasona(le accommodation process
that was itsel inaccessi(le.
9n n#mero#s occasions3 *+* sta permitted or created
conditions that deterred his participation despite their o(li'ation to
ma6e a ri'oro#s3 'ood5aith eort to incl#de him. To wit:
Pa)e "& of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
<n refusin) to mail recertification paper3ork$ the A.A
2iolated .0 policy
Their re#sal to adhere to ederal disa(ilit) accommodation
law was apparent in a letter rom :atherine *#stin dated 7/22/053
in which she stated that mailin' paperwor6 or him to si'n at home
-is not o#r polic)3. in addition to statin' that mailin' the papers
wo#ld re4#ire a medical e7amination. This re#sal to waive local
polic) to accommodate 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit) directl) violated
ederal r#les re4#irin' the *+* to provide alternative orms o
comm#nication to accommodate disa(led tenants.
7i

<n5uiries into -r. Turner1s disability 3ere only made to deter
him from fulfillin) standard obli)ations
:omm#nications (etween the *+* and 1r. T#rner ailed
in part (eca#se the *+* had not s#icientl) or airl) ascertained
the e7tent and nat#re o 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit) or the p#rpose o
ass#rin' its eective accommodation. Cather3 in4#iries into his
medical histor) onl) served to e7cl#de him rom air participation.
The A.A re5uired -r. Turner to make duplicate re5uests for
reasonable accommodation
@n respondin' to his re4#est that the termination5related
hearin' (e held at his home rather than at the inaccessi(le *+*
premises3 the *+* stated that 1r. T#rner co#ld re4#est a
reasona(le accommodation as a person with disa(ilities3 )et he had
alread) re4#ested an accommodation with respect to mandator)
on5site meetin's d#rin' his initial disc#ssion o the matter with
1s. ;at6ins.
The A.A applied improper format restrictions relati2e to -r.
Turner1s reasonable accommodation re5uests
The *+* also attempted to orestall his s#(sid)5related
participation () improperl) appl)in' ormat re4#irements o their
own invention = once a'ain3 in violation o ederal ,*<*/
accommodation laws. Dot onl) did 1s. *#stin i'nore the e7tant
reasona(le accommodation re4#est 1r. T#rner had made to 1s.
Pa)e "" of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
;at6ins3 she attempted to constrain 1r. T#rner to adhere to a
speciic paperwor6 ormat #pon re4#irin' him to ma6e a second
re4#est or reasona(le accommodation3 statin' that the *+*
-,co#ld not/ waive ,the/ action. o re4#irin' 1r. T#rner to ile the
re4#est in written orm. This restriction o reasona(le
accommodation ormat (oth deterred his participation and directl)
violated the *mericans with <isa(ilities *ct and +2< polic)3 (oth
o which speci) that reasona(le accommodation re4#ests m#st not
(e re#sed () the participatin' ho#sin' a#thorit) simply because
the disabled requester does not use a format preferred by the
administering agency.
7ii
1s. *#stin had no le'al a#thorit) to insist
that 1r. T#rner ma6e his re4#est or reasona(le accommodation in
written orm.
The hearin) officer re5uired a home meetin) to occur$ but not
in fulfillment of -r. Turner1s re5uest for reasonable
accommodation
;hile the *+* sho#ld not have re4#ired a medical
e7amination as a condition o accommodatin' him in the irst place
,or the seven E7F speciic reasons listed a(ove/3 ater representin'
their decision5ma6in' re'ardin' osite accommodation as part o a
reasona(le accommodation process3 the) then proceeded to
s#(stit#te what sho#ld have (een a deinitive response to his
re4#est ,i.e.3 a ormal approval or denial o the speciic
accommodation re4#ested/ with a one5time meetin'. !) re#sin'
to oer an accommodation (#t insistin' #pon a home meetin' that
wo#ld occ#r e7terior to the reasona(le accommodation process3
the) implicitl) s#''ested that the) co#ld = #pon an) #t#re
attempts () 1r. T#rner to have his disa(ilit) accommodated via an
osite meetin' = either re#se to provide accommodation or re5
initiate e7cessive medical re4#irements in advance o doin' so. @n
act3 ederal disa(ilit) accommodation law re4#ired them to
accommodate 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit) on that and every subsequent
occasion on which they required him to sign paperwork.
!oth the content and the nat#re o the meetin' s#''ested
that the *+* wo#ld never reco'ni8e or accommodate his
disa(ilit).
Pa)e "% of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
The hearin) officer 2iolated e( parte communication rules
<#rin' the home meetin'3 her eorts had clearl) (een
inormed () comm#nications in which she had o(vio#sl) en'a'ed
with 1s. ;at6ins or other *+* parties. These comm#nications
had either (iased her handlin' o 1r. T#rner$s case or was
otherwise in5line with the pre5e7istin' a'enda o re4#irin' 1r.
T#rner to ore'o his disa(ilit) ri'hts. The advancement o s#ch an
a'enda violated her o(li'ations re'ardin' ex parte
comm#nications3 which constrained her to act as an impartial
ad"#dicator re'ardin' the revocation o 1r. T#rner$s s#(sid).
7iii
@n
positionin' hersel as a direct emissar) o the *+*3 1s. *#stin
s#(ordinated what sho#ld have (een #n(iased decision5ma6in' to
the *+*$s on'oin' a'enda o re#sin' to accommodate his
disa(ilit).
The Boston .0 =ffice misrepresented the cause of subsidy
termination
@n their response to his written complaint3 the !oston +2<
oice did not address the *+*$s accessi(ilit)5related ail#res cited
() the plainti3 an omission which demonstrated their
mon#mentall) deicient #nderstandin' o +2< polic).
*dditionall)3 their letter$s attri(#tion o the s#(sid) revocation to
1r. T#rner$s havin' (een -#nwillin'. to enter the inaccessi(le
*+* premises and -re#sin'. to participate in e7cl#sionar) and
ri'hts5violatin' paperwor6 resem(led the same pre5emptive and
discriminator) post#res adopted () the *+*.
@n their description o what had occ#rred3 the !oston +2<
9ice #sed disa(ilit)5related proced#res to standard ones to
create the appearance that the termination had (een "#stiied3
statin' that 1r. T#rner$s s#(sid) had (een revo6ed (eca#se he had
not provided medical doc#mentation o his disa(ilit). :ontrar) to
this o#tra'eo#s remar6 = which s#''ested that the !oston +2<
9ice (elieved that disa(led individ#als were re4#ired to
participate in medical e7aminations to maintain their tenancies =
1r. T#rner had ailed to #lill standard o(li'ations on several
occasions onl) (eca#se the *+* had ille'all) (loc6ed him rom
doin' so by refusing to grant reasonable accommodations.
Pa)e "+ of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
9 co#rse3 the reasona(le accommodation process sho#ld
not have (een viewed as incl#da(le amon' standard tenant
o(li'ations in an) event3 'iven that s#ch an incl#sion wo#ld have
ille'all) re4#ired 1r. T#rner to #lill more standard o(li'ations
than non5disa(led tenants.
Subsection !:
"ther violations occurrin durin this time
The A.A made unethical e2aluations of and in5uiries into -r.
Turner1s medical history
@n her comm#nications with 1r. T#rner3 1s. *#stin
discriminatoril) descri(ed 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit)5related ina(ilit)
to enter the *+* premises as a volitional shortcomin' ,i.e.3 a
character law/ rather than a eat#re o a disa(lin' condition
readil) and credi(l) evidenced () his stat#s as an %%<@ recipient.
%he also re4#ested disa(ilit)5related medical inormation that
incl#ded in4#iries into (oth the severit) and nat#re o the
disa(ilit). %#ch e7cessive in4#irin' violated +2< polic) and
discriminated a'ainst him as a disa(led *+* tenant.
7iv

1s. *#stin$s attempts to 'ather and eval#ate 1r. T#rner$s
personal medical inormation incl#ded the discriminator)
description o 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit)5related ina(ilit) to enter the
location as -reticence.. This improper application o her personal3
non5proessional opinion
7v
was3 at its essence3 'li(l) dismissive o
(oth 1r. T#rner$s ina(ilit) to enter the premises and his ri'ht to (e
considered the (est representative o his disa(ilit)5related needs. @n
act3 she did not possess the ri'ht3 need3 or medical trainin' to
comment on the nat#re or severit) o his disa(ilit)3 and her
attempts to ac4#ire details re'ardin' 1r. T#rner$s disa(ilit)
'enerall) violated her re'#lator) o(li'ation not to pro(e
#nnecessaril) into 1r. T#rner$s personal health histor).
7vi
Pa)e ", of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
The A.A1s actions 2iolated their contractual obli)ations to
both -r. Turner and his landlord
!) revo6in' the s#(sid)3 the *+* violated their
contract#al o(li'ation to pa) 1r. T#rner$s s#(sidi8ed rent
contin#o#sl) thro#'ho#t his tenanc)3 there() re4#irin' 1r. T#rner
to #lill elements o the m#lti5part) lease that were = accordin' to
the terms o s#ch a lease = theirs alone to #lill. ;hile ederal
re'#lations state that the amil) -is not responsi(le or ,pa)in' the/
+*? "housing authority payment# contract (etween the owner and
the ?+*.
7vii
and that -the owner ma) not terminate the tenanc) o
the amil) or non5pa)ment o the ?+*3.
7viii
the *+*$s ail#re to
pa) the 9cto(er3 2005 rent re4#ired 1r. T#rner to pa) #ll rent in
addition to the (ac6 rent #npaid () the *+*. Their compellin'
him to pa) the rental deicit created the impression that he was
now a part) to the *+*/landlord covenant. This was not the
case.
7i7
9n the contrar)3 the *+*$s ail#re to pa) the +*? violated
their contract#al a'reement with the landlords.
*dditionall)3 in convertin' their contract#al o(li'ation to
pa) 1r. T#rner$s %ection & s#(sid) into a private lease (etween
1r. L and 1r. T#rner3 the *+* orced 1r. T#rner into a lease that
eat#red neither the disa(ilit)5related ass#rances nor standard
protections re4#ired () +2<.
77
(ubsidy termination caused a rent8to8income ratio that
pre2ented him from mo2in) to a suitable d3ellin)
The revocation o the (eneit ,9cto(er3 2005/ re4#ired him
to allocate a lar'e percenta'e o his monthl) %%<@ pa)ment
,#nad"#sted/ to rent. This re4#irement or him to pa) rent
disproportionate to his ad"#sted income violated the ederal
re4#irement that the amil) share o rent -not e7ceed A0 percent o
the amil)$s monthl) ad"#sted income..
77i
The precipito#s s#(sid)
termination also violated +2< re'#lations re4#irin' the *+* to
assess the impact #ndin' termination wo#ld have on 1r. T#rner
as a disa(led tenant
77ii
as well as his ri'ht to a vo#cher e7tension
that wo#ld have helped him navi'ate the -special pro(lems o
locatin' accessi(le #nits..
77iii

Pa)e "# of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
@n wron'#ll) terminatin' his vo#cher witho#t prior notice3
the *+* disallowed his transition into s#ita(le replacement
ho#sin'.
Pa)e "7 of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Pa)e "' of "*
/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/237116950.doc
Last printed 6/15/2007 16:27 a6/p6
i
%, :F4 > *9%.## (e) (7). )Iss!ance of decision* The person who cond#cts the hearin' m#st iss#e a written
decision3 statin' (riel) the reasons or the decision. 0act#al determinations relatin' to the individ#al circ#mstances o the
amil) shall (e (ased on a preponderance o the evidence presented at the hearin'. * cop) o the hearin' decision shall (e
#rnished promptl) to the amil)..
ii
?otice P<. %&&78"+ (.A)(<<)(F)("). The entire para'raph is as ollows: -*pplication ?rocess. ?+*s m#st ens#re
that all emplo)ees who are involved in the application process #nderstand how to cond#ct tenant selection and screenin'
witho#t discriminatin' on the (asis o an) protected class3 in partic#lar applicants with disa(ilities. *ll application oices
m#st (e accessi(le. The ?+* m#st provide accessi(le materials or persons with si'ht and hearin' impairments and
otherwise provide eective comm#nication3 #pon re4#est. Also see %, :.F.4 > 9.7. -* ?+* m#st ma6e special
arran'ements to ta6e the application o persons who are #na(le to come to the ?+*$s oices (eca#se o a disa(ilit). *t the
initial point o contact with each applicant3 the ?+* m#st inorm all applicants o alternative orms o comm#nication..
Also see ?otice P<. %&&%8&" (.A)(<<)(:)(") ,similar phraseolo')/.
iii
.0@=!$ A!oint (tatement$B > '. -G?roviders sho#ld (e aware that persons with disa(ilities t)picall) have the
most acc#rate 6nowled'e a(o#t the #nctional limitations imposed () their disa(ilities..
iv
%, :F4 9 > ,(b)(,)(ii). * similar instr#ction appears in ?otice P<. %&&%8&" (.A) (<)()(+): -* p#(lic entit)
shall operate each service3 pro'ram or activit) so that when viewed in its entirety! each service3 pro'ram or activit) is readil)
accessi(le to and #sa(le () individ#als with disa(ilities.. ,$mphasis mine/ ,2& :0C 35.150 cited/ +2< reiterates the
instr#ction in ?otice P<. %&&78"+ (.A)(<)(B)("&). -0or e7istin' non5ho#sin' acilities3 ?+*s shall operate each pro'ram
or activit) receivin' ederal inancial assistance so that the pro'ram or activit)3 when viewed in its entiret)3 is readil)
accessi(le to and #sa(le () individ#als with disa(ilities..
v
?otice P<. %&&%8&" (.A) (<<)(:)("). -*ll application oices m#st (e accessi(leG * ?+* m#st ma6e special
arran'ements to ta6e the application o persons who are #na(le to come to the ?+* (eca#se o a disa(ilit).. *lso see %,
:F4 9 > #(i8ii). -@n determinin' the site or location o a ederall) assisted acilit)3 an applicant or assistance or a recipient
ma) not ma6e selections the p#rpose or eect o which wo#ld ,i/ e7cl#de 4#aliied individ#als with handicaps rom3 den)
them the (eneits o3 or otherwise s#("ect them to discriminationGor ,ii/ deeat or s#(stantiall) impair the accomplishment
o the o("ectives o the pro'ram with respect toGindivid#als with handicaps..
vi
ee The Fair .ousin) Act of "*99@%, :F4 "&&$ -shall ollow the more strin'ent re4#irements. Also see %, :F4
9 > ,(e): -The o(li'ation to compl) ,with ederal re'#lations/ is not o(viated or alleviated () an) %tate or local law or other
re4#irement that3 (ased on handicap3 imposes inconsistent or contradictor) prohi(itions or limits #pon the eli'i(ilit) o
4#aliied individ#als with handicaps to receive serviceG.
vii
%, :F4 > *9%.#,. -The ,local ?+*$s/ administrative plan m#st (e in accordance with +2< re'#lations and
re4#irements.. The *+*$s local administrative plan did not n#lli) their o(li'ation to act within the parameters o other
ederal laws ,s#ch as the *<*/.
viii
?otice P<. %&&%8&" (.A) (<<)(:)(#). -The oc#s sho#ld (e on indin' a reasona(le accommodation that will
permit the applicant to compl) with the essential o(li'ations o tenanc)..
i7
%, :F4 > 9.7 (c). ee also ?otice P<. %&&%8&" (.A)$ which states that the ?+* is re4#ired to provide -an)
other. re4#ired accommodation.
7
See .0@=!$ A!oint (tatement$B > '. -G*n individ#al is not o(li'ated to accept an alternative accommodation
s#''ested () the provider i ,he/ (elieves it will not meet ,his/ needs and ,his/ preerred accommodation is reasona(le..
7i
?otice P<. %&&78"+ (.A) (<<)(F)(%).
7ii
.0@=!$ A!oint (tatement$B > "%. -+o#sin' providers m#st 'ive appropriate consideration to reasona(le
accommodation re4#ests even i the re4#ester ma6es the re4#est orall) or does not #se the provider$s preerred orms or
proced#res or ma6in' s#ch re4#ests..
7iii
%, :F4 > *9%.### (e)(,). This re'#lation speciies that termination5related hearin's m#st (e cond#cted ()
someone other than a -person who made or approved the decision Eto revo6e the s#(sid)F #nder review or a s#(ordinate o
this person..
7iv
?otice P<. %&&78"+ (.A) (<)(E)("). -@lle'al @n4#iries ,2A :0C H 100.202/ = The 0air +o#sin' *ct ma6es it
#nlaw#l or a ho#sin' provider toGas6 a(o#t the nat#re or severit) o a disa(ilit) o ,an applicant or a dwellin'/..
7v
.0@=!$ A!oint (ection$B (<<)(E)(+). -?+*s ma) not ma6e "#d'ments as to an individ#al$s a(ilit) to perorm a
tas6 (ased on a person$s disa(ilit)..
7vi
?otice P<. %&&%8&" (.A) (E)(+). A?+*$s ma) not ma6e "#d'ments as to an individ#al$s a(ilit) to perorm a tas6
(ased on a person$s disa(ilit).. Also see ?otice P<. %&&%8&" (<<) (:)(+). -* ?+* ma) not re4#ire applicants to provide
access to conidential medical records in order to veri) a disa(ilit) nor ma) a ?+* re4#ire speciic details as to the
disa(ilit)..
7vii
%, :F4 *9%.+"& (b)("). *lso see %, :F4 *9%.,#" (b)(,)(iii). -The amil) is not responsi(le or pa)ment o the
portion o rent to owner covered () the ho#sin' assistance pa)ment #nder the +*? contract (etween the owner and the
?+*..
7viii
%, :F4 *9%.+"& (b)(%). -The ?+* ail#re to pa) the ho#sin' assistance pa)ment to the owner is not a violation o
the lease (etween the tenant and the owner. <#rin' the term o the lease the owner ma) not terminate the tenanc) o the
amil) or non5pa)ment o the ?+* ho#sin' assistance pa)ment..
7i7
%, :F4 *9%.,#7 (b)("). -The amil) is not a part) to or third part) (eneiciar) o the +*? contract..
77
?otice P<. %&&78"+ (.A) (<)(B)(*)(")(<;). -@n order to ens#re that participatin' owners do not discriminate in the
recipient$s ederall) assisted pro'ram3 a recipient shall enter into a +2<5approved contract with participatin' owners3
which contract shall incl#de necessar) ass#rances o non5discrimination.. *lso see %, :F4 *9%.,#% (b)(+): -,The owner is
responsi(le or/ compl)in' with e4#al opport#nit) re4#irements.. 9ther standard ,non5 disa(ilit)5related/ oversi'ht also
vanished when the *+* improperl) terminated their commitment to pa) 1r. T#rner$s s#(sid) ,e.'.3 the ?+* was no lon'er
present to noti) the landlords o deects in the apartment3 as re4#ired by %, :F4 > *9%.,&#$ so the *+* deprived 1r.
T#rner o standard tenant5landlord advocac) as well/.
77i
%, :F4 > *9%.+&# (a)(#).
77ii
%, :F4 *9%.##% (c)(%)(iii). -@ the amil) incl#des a person with disa(ilities3 the ?+* decision concernin' s#ch
action is s#("ect to consideration o reasona(le accommodation in accordance with part & o this title..
77iii
?otice P<. %&&%8&" (.A)(<)(B)(').