University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name ADAPT v. Philadelphia Housing Authority PH-PA-0001
Docket / Court 98-cv-4609 ( E.D. Pa. )
State/Territory Pennsylvania
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Public Housing
Attorney Organization Steve Gold
Case Summary
On August 27, 1998, plaintiff, an advocacy group, filed this lawsuit under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 on behalf of persons with mobility impairments eligible for housing assistance from the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA). This action was filed against the PHA in the Philadelphia ... read more >
On August 27, 1998, plaintiff, an advocacy group, filed this lawsuit under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 on behalf of persons with mobility impairments eligible for housing assistance from the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA). This action was filed against the PHA in the Philadelphia Division of the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, ADAPT of Philadelphia, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that PHA was violating the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that by not making enough units available in the PHA system handicap-accessible, the PHA, as a recipient of federal funds ran afoul of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

PHA administers public housing benefits in the City of Philadelphia through being a direct provider of housing, as well as issuing Section 8 'vouchers' for low-rent housing. The total capacity at the time of filing was 20,000 units. 13,000 of those units were in 'high-rise' buildings. 7,000 were in 'scattered-site' buildings which were built into rowhouse-like blocs adjacent to one another. Plaintiffs alleged that there were not enough accessible scattered-site units.

PHA received block grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for renovation and modernization from 1993 to 1997. Before renovations, PHA had no mobility-impaired accessible scattered-site units. After renovations, PHA only had 22 accessible units. Accessible units for persons with mobility impairments represented only 2.7% of the scattered-site units.

Implementing regulations of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require that if renovations take place in a structure, and the renovation costs 75% or more of the replacement cost of the unit, then 5% of the renovated housing must be "made accessible for people with mobility impairments." 24 C.F.R. § 8.22(b).

On April 14, 2000, following a non-jury trial, the Court (Judge Harvey Bartle III) entered partial findings of fact to assist the parties in reaching a settlement agreement. The Court found that PHA was covered by the HUD regulation and was required to make 5% of its scattered-site units accessible to people with mobility impairments, and that furthermore, that the cost of such alterations was not prohibitively expensive.

On May 20, 2002, the parties entered into a private settlement agreement , which was filed under seal. The entire document is not currently available, so the duration and exact contents of the PHA's obligations under the settlement agreement are unknown at this time. The contents of the settlement agreement are detailed in later litigation to enforce the settlement agreement.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the PHA was required to construct 248 units accessible to persons with mobility impairments by December 2005 (with 124 to be available in December 2003). The Settlement Agreement also stipulated the locations of the accessible units, with a proviso that if the PHA decided to construct the units elsewhere, it would seek the Plaintiff's approval, which would be given or denied within 15 days of notice.

Plaintiffs rejected several 'off-settlement' unit proposals in the "Tasker Homes" because plaintiffs believed they were in conventional buildings and not scattered-site units. The PHA sued to enforce the settlement agreement, alleging the Plaintiff's approval was unreasonably withheld. The Court found in the PHA's favor and certified the "Tasker Homes" as satisfying the PHA's obligations under the settlement agreement.

On June 8, 2004, the Court again approved another batch of the "Tasker Homes" as satisfying the PHA's settlement obligations after the Court found that the Plaintiffs approval was unreasonably withheld.

On August 29, 2005, the Court entered an Order following an evidentiary hearing on yet another alleged violation of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs claimed that the PHA was not taking steps to "maximize use" of accessible scattered-site units, in contravention of the Settlement Agreement. The Resident Advisory Board (RAB) moved to intervene as a defendant. The motion was granted, and the RAB presented testimony that the occupants of the units in question were disabled, but not dependent on wheelchairs for mobility. The Court found violations, but found that they were moot, and encouraged the Plaintiffs to be vigilant in ensuring compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

During the course of the evidentiary hearing, the PHA filed several interlocutory appeals contesting discovery orders entered by the District Court.

On January 9, 2006, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (Judges Roth, Fuentes, and Garth), in a published opinion authored by Judge Garth (433 F.3d 353) found that the litigation was piecemeal and that the appellate court did not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court vacated the appeal.

On May 11, 2006, The plaintiffs informed the District Court in a letter that the PHA had complied with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement.

On May 15, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees as untimely. There has been no litigation following the entry of this order.

Blase Kearney - 06/12/2012
Greg in den Berken - 10/16/2014

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Content of Injunction
Housing Authority
Mobility impairment
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Causes of Action Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Defendant(s) Philadelphia
Plaintiff Description ADAPT is an organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with disabilities.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Steve Gold
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2002 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Unknown
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Urban Institute Baseline Assessment of Public Housing Desegregation Cases
By: George Galster et al. (Urban Institute, Housing and Urban Development (HUD))
Citation: (2000)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

2:98-cv-04609-HB (E.D. Pa.) 03/22/2012
PH-PA-0001-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Opinion 04/14/2000 (2000 WL 433976) (E.D. Pa.)
PH-PA-0001-0007 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 04/23/2004 (E.D. Pa.)
PH-PA-0001-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum 06/08/2004 (2004 WL 1576639) (E.D. Pa.)
PH-PA-0001-0002 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum 08/29/2005 (2005 WL 3274331) (E.D. Pa.)
PH-PA-0001-0005 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion 01/09/2006 (433 F.3d 353)
PH-PA-0001-0004 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Public.Resource.Org
Memorandum 05/15/2007 (511 F.Supp.2d 510) (E.D. Pa.)
PH-PA-0001-0006 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Bartle, Harvey III (E.D. Pa.)
PH-PA-0001-0002 | PH-PA-0001-0003 | PH-PA-0001-0005 | PH-PA-0001-0006 | PH-PA-0001-0007 | PH-PA-0001-9000
Fuentes, Julio M. (Third Circuit)
Garth, Leonard I. (D.N.J., Third Circuit)
Roth, Jane Richards (D. Del., Third Circuit)
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Clarke, Jennifer R. (Pennsylvania)
Eiseman, James Jr. (Pennsylvania)
Gold, Stephen F. (Pennsylvania)
Kahne, David Alfred (Texas)
Defendant's Lawyers Curley, Andrew Coyne (Pennsylvania)
Flaherty, Brian P. (Pennsylvania)
Fletman, F. Abbe (Pennsylvania)
Freiman, Arlene O. (Pennsylvania)
Frey, William G. (Pennsylvania)
Kessler, Alan C. (New Jersey)
Kolber, Janice L. (Pennsylvania)
McCabe, Christopher I (Pennsylvania)
Oxholm, Carl III (Pennsylvania)
Sweet, Joel M (Pennsylvania)
Waldman, Scott M. (Pennsylvania)
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -