|
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN DOE ) Plaintiff,
v. THE LAMBS FARM,
Inc. Defendant.
.
Jury Trial Demanded
Introduction
Plaintiff John Doe brings this action to
obtain redress for Defendant’s violations of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794; Section 804 of the
Fair Housing Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3604; and Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12182. Doe is an
adult with a developmental disability who sought admission to the
residential facility and to the vocational services of Defendant,
The Lambs Farm, Inc., (hereinafter “Lambs Farm”), and who is in all
respects eligible for and qualified to receive such services. He
initially received a positive response to his application, but when
Lambs Farm learned that Doe was HIV positive, for that reason, and
that reason alone, Lambs Farm terminated the application process and
rejected his application. Lambs Farm’s rejection of Doe was based
upon unfounded fears and stereotypes regarding persons with HIV and
violates federal law. Plaintiff seeks an injunction from this court
ordering Lambs Farm to admit him to its residential program as well
as its vocational services. He also seeks compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorneys fees, and other appropriate injunctive
relief.
Jurisdiction
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
794(a); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3613; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331; and 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1343.
Venue
2. Venue is proper in this district because
violations of the above-referenced laws have taken place and
continue to take place in the Northern District of Illinois, the
impact of the violations on Mr. Doe will continue to occur in the
Northern District of Illinois, and Defendant is located in the
Northern District of Illinois.
Parties
3.
Plaintiff John Doe currently resides in northern Illinois.
4.
At all times relevant to this case, Plaintiff Doe has had a
disability within the meaning of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act,
and a handicap within the meaning of the Fair Housing Amendments
Act, in that he has had an impairment, HIV, that substantially
limits him in one or more major life activities, including
reproduction.
5.
At all times relevant to this case, Plaintiff Doe has had a
record of a disability, HIV, within the meaning of the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act, and a record of a handicap, HIV, within the
meaning of the Fair Housing Amendments Act, in that Plaintiff was
diagnosed with an impairment, and a record was made of that
impairment, HIV, that substantially limits him in one or more major
life activities, including reproduction.
6.
At all times relevant to this case, Defendant has regarded
Plaintiff Doe as having a disability within the meaning of the ADA
and the Rehabilitation Act, and a handicap within the meaning of the
Fair Housing Amendments Act, in that Defendant has regarded
Plaintiff as having an impairment, HIV, that substantially
interferes with one or more major life activities, including
interacting with others and reproduction.
7.
At all times relevant to this case, Plaintiff Doe has been
qualified for placement in Lambs Farm’s residential program and for
receipt of its services in that he has a developmental disability
and meets the other lawful criteria for admission to Lambs Farm.
8.
Defendant Lambs Farm is a non-profit corporation that
provides housing and other services, including vocational services,
to individuals with developmental disabilities, and whose principal
place of business is located at 14245 W. Rockland Road,
Libertyville, Illinois 60048.
9.
Upon information and belief, Lambs Farm receives federal
financial assistance and is a program or activity within the meaning
of the Rehabilitation Act.
10.
Lambs Farm’s vocational and housing services are a public
accommodation subject to the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act
and the ADA.
11.
Lambs Farm residential facilities are subject to the
requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act.
Facts
12.
On or about the fall of 2004, Plaintiff made application to
Lambs Farm’s vocational and residential programs.
13.
In the spring of 2005, Plaintiff was tentatively accepted by
Lambs Farm for participation in programs and receipt of its
services, pending funding approvals and other information.
14.
Plaintiff has a diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV).
15.
On or about mid-June, 2005, at Lambs Farm’s request, PACT
Community Services, Inc. (“PACT”), a social service agency that was
assisting Plaintiff in securing services, provided information about
Plaintiff to Lambs Farm, which included a reference to Plaintiff’s
HIV status.
16.
Because of Plaintiff’s HIV status, Defendant terminated the
application process for Plaintiff and refused further consideration
of his application.
17.
Following its review of the information provided to it by
PACT, on or about June 21, 2005, Lambs Farm management advised PACT
that Plaintiff would not be admitted to its programs due to his HIV
status.
18.
Lambs Farm board chairman later confirmed in writing that
Plaintiff could not be admitted to either the residential or
vocational programs of Lambs Farm due to his “communicable disease,”
HIV.
19.
Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, fear, pain and anguish as
a result of Defendant’s refusal to admit him to Lambs Farm’s
programs. The Defendant’s continued refusal to provide plaintiff
with a supervised and safe place to reside as he transitions to
independence following the death of his parents has continued to
cause him such distress as well as anxiety. Plaintifff will continue
to suffer if he is not granted relief in this case.
COUNT I
Violation Of the Rehabilitation Act
20.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs
1-19 of this Complaint.
21.
Pursuant to the Rehabilitaton Act, it is unlawful to
discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability in the
rights and privileges of a public accommodation.
22.
Lambs Farm is a program or activity within the meaning of
the Rehabilitation Act.
23.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant had
knowledge of Plaintiff’s disability, HIV, and his record of
disability, and regarded Plaintiff as having a disability.
24.
Based on Plaintiff’s disability, without conducting an
individualized assessment or consulting with experts in the field of
HIV risk and transmission, Defendant, without basis, erroneously
concluded that Plaintiff posed a safety risk and denied him
admission to its vocational and residential programs.
25.
Defendant, by virtue of the conduct described herein,
discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disability, HIV, in
violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
26.
As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered economic loss, the loss of companionship, needed
supervision and structure, pain, suffering, fear, humiliation,
embarrassment, severe emotional distress, and other injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks for the following relief:
A.
A declaratory judgment that the Defendant has discriminated
against Plaintiff by denying him admission to Lambs Farms programs
and services in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973; and
B.
An order requiring Lambs Farm to admit Plaintiff to its
residential and vocational programs, with appropriate accommodations
as necessary;
C.
Compensatory damages; and
D.
Attorneys fees and costs; and
E.
Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II
Violation Of Title III of the ADA
27.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs
1-26 of this Complaint.
28.
Title III of the ADA provides:
No individual
shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the
full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation by any private entity who owns, leases (or leases to),
or operates a place of public accommodation.
42 U.S.C
Sec.12182.
29.
Defendant, by virtue of the conduct described herein,
discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disability in
violation of Title III of the ADA.
30.
As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered economic loss, the loss of companionship, needed
supervision and structure, pain, suffering, fear, humiliation,
embarrassment, severe emotional distress, and other injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:
A.
A declaratory judgment that the Defendant Lambs Farm
discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the Title III of the
ADA by denying him admission to the residential and vocational
programs of Lambs Farm;
B.
An order requiring Lambs Farm to admit Plaintiff to its
residential and vocational programs, with such reasonable
modifications of policies, practices or procedures as may
be necessary and appropriate.
C.
Attorneys fees and costs; and
D.
Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III
Violation of
the Fair Housing Amendments Act
31.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs
1-30 of this Complaint.
32.
It is a violation of Section 804 of the Fair Housing
Amendments Act to discriminate against any person in the terms,
conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in
the provision of services or facilities in connection with such a
dwelling, because of the handicap of that person.
33.
Defendant operates a facility and services in connection with
a dwelling within the meaning of section 802 of the Fair Housing
Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3602 (b);
34.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff has been
qualified for admission to the residential facility operated by
Defendant.
35.
Defendant’s refusal to admit Plaintiff to its residential
facility because of his handicap was a violation of Section 804 of
the Fair Housing Amendments Act and its continued refusal to admit
him for that reason constitutes a continuing violation of that Act.
36.
As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered economic loss, the loss of companionship, needed
supervision and structure, pain, suffering, fear, humiliation,
embarrassment, severe emotional distress, and other injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:
A.
Declaratory judgment that the Defendant has denied Plaintiff
admission to Lambs Farm’s residential facility in violation of
Section 804 of the Fair Housing Amendments Act;
B.
An order requiring Lambs Farm to admit Plaintiff to its
residential facility, with such reasonable accommodations as may be
necessary and appropriate;
C.
Compensatory and Punitive Damages;
D.
Attorneys fees and costs; and
E.
Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
____________________________
Karen I. Ward
One of the Attorneys
for Plaintiff
Karen I. Ward
Alan Goldstein
20 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 300
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 341-0022 (telephone) / (312) 341-0295
(fax) |
