On November 23, 2011, the United States filed this lawsuit in this U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of a college student with disabilities. The U.S. sued the University of Nebraska at Kearney for violations of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. The plaintiff, ...
read more >
On November 23, 2011, the United States filed this lawsuit in this U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of a college student with disabilities. The U.S. sued the University of Nebraska at Kearney for violations of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. The plaintiff, represented by the Department of Justice, asked the court to declare that the defendant had violated the Fair Housing Act and to enjoin the defendant from pursuing discriminatory practices in the future. The plaintiff also sought monetary damages and civil penalties against the defendant.
The plaintiff claimed that a student had been denied reasonable accommodation for her service animal through university housing. The student, who suffered from anxiety and depression, lived with a small dog that helped her manage her panic attacks. Despite numerous oral and written requests for reasonable accommodation, the student was denied permission to live with her service animal in the university's housing.
On April 19, 2013, the Court (Judge John M. Gerrard) ruled on the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court ruled that the Fair Housing Act did apply to the University of Nebraska at Kearney, even though the university's housing could be considered temporary for most residents. 940 F. Supp. 2d 974 (D. Neb. 2013).
The parties settled the case, and on September 4, 2015, the Court (Judge John M. Gerrard) approved the consent order. In the settlement, the defendant did not concede liability, but agreed to discontinue its discriminatory housing practices against students with disabilities. The university adopted a "University Housing Reasonable Accommodation Policy" and agreed to pay $140,000 to a settlement fund for effected students.
The court retained jurisdiction of the case for two years to enforce the settlement. The consent order lasted two years. There has been no activity on the docket subsequent to the entry of the consent order. Accordingly, the case is presumed closed.
Asma Husain - 10/26/2015
Hope Brinn - 11/02/2018
compress summary
