The following cases involve private clubs in the context of land use law and disability:
Ring v. Boca Ciega Yacht Club, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53685 (M.D. Fla. March 27, 2020)
Tags
- clubhouse
- ADA
- service animal
- reasonable accommodation
- private regulation
Story
The Boca Ciega Yacht Club is a nonprofit corporation that leases a clubhouse and grounds from the City of Gulfport. BCYC is only allowed to use the premises for a meeting place, recreational purposes, vessel docking and storage, watercraft events, and business office, for members only. There is a multi-step application process to become a member, and one of the requirements is a background check to verify that applicants have a land-based address and are less likely to live on their boat. The BCYC Bylaws state that no pets or animals are allowed inside the clubhouse. Samantha Ring, a member of the club, started to train her dog to be a service animal, since she suffered from severe allergies and panic attack, and obtained a note from her doctor that was in support of her having a service animal. Ring sent the letter to the BCYC Commodore making a request for an accommodation to bring the dog into the clubhouse as a service animal. The requested was denied, however Ring brought the dog into the clubhouse. Ring was issued a reprimand for violating the clubs pet policy by bringing the dog into the clubhouse was threatened with a fine. The BCYC general membership eventually vote to expel ring for a variety of reasons including violation of club rules.
Legal Claims
Ring asserted BCYC failed to make reasonable accommodations under the ADA. However, the Commodore determined that BCYC was a private club and exempt from the ADA’s requirements.
Holding/Reasoning
The Court held that all the Lansdowne factors weighed in favor of BCYC’s private-club status, the Court held that BCYC qualifies as a private club and thus is exempt from Title III ADA requirements. To determine whether an establishment is a private club under the ADA, the Court looked to the factors laid out in Lansdowne: (1) the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of members; (2) the membership’s control over the operations of the establishment; (3) the history of the organization; (4) the use of the facilities by non-members; (5) the purpose of the club’s existence; (6) whether the club advertises for members; (7) whether the club is for profit or not for profit; and (8) the formalities observed by the club, e.g., bylaws, meetings, and membership cards. The most important of these factors being genuine selectivity.
Sanzaro v. Ardiente Homeowners Ass’n LLC, 21 F.Supp.3d 1109 (D. Nev. 2014)
Tags
- clubhouse
- FHA
- service animal
Story
In this case, Deborah Sanzaro owned property governed by a homeowners’ association (HOA). She had a history of back surgeries, nerve damage, chronic pain, and lack of mobility. As such, she needed a walker to get around and wore a leg brace. Mrs. Sanzaro acquired and trained a service dog to help manage her pain levels and limited mobility. She wanted to bring her dog into the HOA’s clubhouse, but was denied on three occasions.
Legal Claims
Mrs. Sanzaro initially brought 102 causes of action against the HOA, including violation of the ADA and FHA. The claims centered around the HOA refusing to allow Mrs. Sanzaro’s dog in the clubhouse. After the U.S. District Court of Nevada dismissed all her claims, the 9th Circuit held the HOA’s clubhouse was a public place under the ADA and vacated the lower court’s dismissal on the ADA and FHA claims.
Here, Mrs. Sanzaro moved for partial summary judgment on the FHA claims. Those claims included that she was handicapped under the FHA, the HOA refused to allow her dog to join her in the HOA clubhouse, and the HOA would not provide an accommodation.
Holding/Reasoning (Each Claim)
The court ultimately found that, as a matter of law, the HOA knew or should have known of Mrs. Sanzaro’s handicap. Specifically, the court explained the ways in which Mrs. Sanzaro documented her handicap, sent the HOA copies of doctors orders, among others.
Next, the court discussed the rules and regulations governing when animals are considered “reasonable accommodations.” Importantly, there are differences between the way animals are treated under the FHA and ADA.
Lastly, the court said that a reasonable jury could find an HOA justified in asking whether Mrs. Sanzaro’s dog was a licensed service animal and asking how the dog (a small Chihuahua) helped Mrs. Sanzaro’s mobility. Thus, as a matter of law, the court could not find in favor of Mrs. Sanzaro.
According to the case, a housing provider may ask for documentation of a disability and documentation showing the need for a service animal from an ‘appropriate’ third party (e.g.: medical provider, mental health provider).