The first individual is a veteran who has severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from military service and also has Schizo-affective disorder.  This person was evicted ostensibly for not submitting a renewal income and resource eligibility form as is required for a building operated under the auspices of the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA).  The management company landlord first alleged “nuisance” grounds for an unlawful detainer, which is often used to evict people with mental disabilities.  The landlord subsequently changed the reason for the eviction, stating it was because the tenant did not submit an annual income and resource eligibility form, which the landlord required sooner than the normal 12-month period because of a change in building ownership.

The plaintiff-to-be had been residing there for about 6-7 years and this individual’s disability was well known to the landlord and SFHA, other accommodations having been made, including installing a special deadbolt lock on the apartment.  This individual has been homeless since May 23, 2018.  An individual with severe mental illness would be disproportionately affected by the effects of being without a home than would an individual without a psychiatric disability.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) states they were investigating the case since May 10, 2018, but on December 5, 2018, they issued a “no cause” closure letter and refused to provide documents to PWDF, in spite of the fact that we are the individual’s attorneys, stating it is their policy not to release documents from the landlord until a California Public Records Act request is submitted.  We are awaiting receipt of these documents, which should be not more than 10 days from the request made December 10, 2018, to decide if we will take the case to federal court alleging violations of the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  PWDF issued a settlement demand on behalf of our client to the attorneys who filed the unlawful detainer action for failure to provide an updated income and resource form.  Based on information we have, DFEH made legal error by not taking into account our client’s mental disability. This is surprising that a state fair housing agency would not take a disability into account by ignoring substantial psychiatric evidence.

The second individual has been a client of PWDF on other issues, most recently since 2009.  This individual has severe autism, depression, anxiety, intermittent psychosis, and an intellectual disability, but not enough to prevent him/her from working.  S/he has been engaging in supportive employment on a part-time basis for approximately 10 years.  This individual has been fortunate to have supportive housing from The Arc of San Francisco for over 10 years.  According to The Arc of San Francisco; however, this particular apartment building is run under the SFHA and; therefore, has resource and eligibility requirements as a recipient of financial assistance, so PWDF’s client has been told to discontinue two of the four part-time workdays in order to comply with SFHA’s income and asset eligibility requirements.  PWDF is in the process of talking with The Arc of San Francisco to come up with and, along with PWDF, to request reasonable accommodations based on the fact that this individual’s supportive employment is not competitive employment and his/her employer’s subsidy and special conditions should be taken into account in how the individual’s work income is counted.

We are hopeful that PWDF and The Arc of San Francisco can effectuate a reasonable accommodation so as not to force this individual to cease half of his/her weekly work hours.  In theory at least, PWDF and The Arc of San Francisco agree that it is important for people with autism to work.  It is important for people with autism not only to live independently, but to work to the extent possible.  The Arc of The United States has produced and compiled resources (https://autismnow.org/on-the-job/) related to employment for people with autism spectrum disorder, including a toolkit for employers.[²]  In conclusion, we do not feel it should be necessary to enter into a lawsuit due to our expected cooperation in requesting this accommodation: reasonable accommodations are provided for under federal housing law.[³]