North Little Rock Sued for Disability Discrimination

8/10/2019 North Little Rock Sued for Disability Discrimination

1/13

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT

OF

ARKANSAS

BI\STE N

DIVISION

W e - ~ e . r

KOY BUTLER AND

MARY

BETH

CRAVENS,

THROUGH

HER

DAUGHTER DEEDEE CRAVENS

PLAINTIFF(s)

vs.

CITY OF NORTH

LITTLE ROCK

AND

JOE SMITH, IN IDS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

MAYOR

OF THE

CITY OF NORTH

LITTLE

DEFENDANT(s)

This case assigned to District

~

and to Magistrate J u d g e - _ _ _ , ~ / A ~ ~ ~ : , . . . . . . o : - -

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Koy Butler, owner of the House of3, and Mary Beth Cravens, through her

Daughter DeeDee Cravens, by and through their attorney, Dana McClain, files this Complaint

against Defendant City ofNorth Little Rock, alleges the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 This action is brought under the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, ( the fair

housing Act ), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

( ADA ), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., and the regulations implementing Title II, 29 C.F.R.

Part 35; the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (Ark. Code Ann 16-123-101-16-123-

108) ( ACRA ), and the Arkansas Fair Housing Act (Ark. Code Ann 16-123-201-16-

123-348)( AFHA ).

Case 4:14-cv-00632-SWW Document 1 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 13


2/13

2 This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter

of

Plaintiffs' claims under the FHA

and the ADA pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1331 and 1343. This court has supplemental

jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 because

those claims are so related to Plaintiffs federal claims that they form part

of

the same case

and controversy.

3. This action is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 12188; 42 U.S.C. 3613; Arkansas Code 16-

123-107(b); and Arkansas Code 16-123-336. This court has jurisdiction to issue a

declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202.

V NU

4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the events or omissions giving rise to

the claims alleged herein occurred in the Eastern District of Arkansas and because the

Defendant and the property at issue in this action are located there.

P RTIES

5. Plaintiff, Koy Butler, is the owner

of

House

of

Three ( Ho3 ), a business which operates

homes that allow people with disabilities opportunity to live in community environments

and not be confined in an institution.

6. Mr. Butler 's address is 319 Locust, Lonoke,

AR

72086.

7 Mr. Butler currently operates a home in Little Rock, Arkansas, and was set to open a

second home in North Little Rock Arkansas located at 4404 Arlington, North Little Rock,

Arkansas, until the City ofNorth Little Rock s discriminatory practices and procedures

prevented the development

of

said home.

8

Mary Beth Cravens, is a person who had been a long term resident

of

North Little Rock,

AR.

2



3/13

9. Because

of

the discriminatory actions

of

the defendant Mary Beth Cravens, currently

resides in Little Rock, AR.

10. Mary Beth Cravens current address is

23

Lyric Ln., Little Rock,

R

72205.

11. Mary Beth Cravens has a diagnosis

of

Alzheimer's disease (AD), and requested housing

with the Ho3 in NLR.

12. Defendant City

ofNorth

Little Rock ( City ) is a unit

of

government organized under the

laws of

the State

of

Arkansas. The City includes its employees, agents, boards, and

commissions, including the North Little Rock City Council, Board

of

Adjustments and

Planning and Zoning.

13. City

ofNorth

Little Rock's address is 300 Main St., North Little Rock,

R

72119.

14

Defendant, Joe Smith, in his official capacity is the current Mayor

of

the City

ofNorth

Little Rock, AR.

15. Defendant, Joe Smith's address is 300 Main St., North Little Rock,

R

72119.

16. The North Little Rock Mayor's Office provides the administration and coordination

of

services for the City

ofNorth

Little Rock.

17. The City's zoning ordinances are adopted pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 14-56-401 et

seq., and are set forth

in

the City

ofNorth

Little Rock Zoning Ordinance.

18. The North Little Rock Board ofAdjustment (''the Board ) acts

on

zoning variance

petitions pursuant to City

ofNorth

Little Rock Zoning Ordinance Article 19. The

members of the Board

of

Adjustment are appointed by the Mayor ofNorth Little Rock,

with approval

of

the North Little Rock City Council pursuant to City

ofNorth

Little Rock

Zoning Ordinance Article 19 section 19 1. North Little Rock Zoning Ordinance Article

3



4/13

9section 19.l(A) specifies the questions the Board ofAdjustment may consider when

reviewing a variance petition.

19. North Little Rock City Code Article 2 Section 2.2 defines family as One or more person

occupying premises and living as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit provided that,

unless all members are related by blood

or

marriage, the number of persons shall not

exceed

five .

20. The City ofNorth Little Rock refused reasonable accommodations to allow 4 non

related individuals with disabilities and a caregiver to live in a house developed in a

residential neighborhood by Ho3 yet per their ordinances would allow 5 unrelated

individuals to live in a home.

21. North Little Rock City Code Article 2 Section 2.2 defines Nursing home or convalescent

home as, A structure designed

or

used for residential occupancy and providing limited

medical or nursing care for occupants, but not including a hospital or mental health

center .

22. The City ofNorth Little Rock refused a reasonable accommodation request to allow 4

non-related individuals with disabilities and a caregiver to live in a home developed in a

residential neighborhood because they require the minimal assistance of a care giver and

therefore they were not allowed in an area zoned for single family homes.

23. Until March 2014, the City ofNorth Little Rock Zoning Ordinances and the North Little

Rock Municipal Code failed to include even a reference to the Fair Housing Act or the

Americans with Disabilities Act.

24. Until March of2014, the City

ofNorth

Little Rock Zoning Ordinances or Municipal

Code did not include a policy or procedure concerning reasonable accommodations or

4



5/13

-

modification in rules policies practices or services that may be necessary to afford

persons equal opportunities to use and enjoy dwellings or participate equally in the

benefits of the services programs or activities of a public entity.

Factual llegations

25. Mary Beth Cravens is a resident of Little Rock AR.

26. Mary Beth Cravens has Alzheimer which affects one

or

more major life activities.

27. Mary Beth Cravens is a person with a disability under the ADA.

28. Mary Beth Cravens was a long time resident

ofNLR

Arkansas and

when her

daughters

sought out housing options for their mom; they contacted the Ho3.

29. At the time they were glad to learn that the Ho3 would be opening a home in the

Lakewood neighborhood and sought placement residence for their mom.

30. However because of the City

ofNLR s

continued discriminatory practice Mary Beth

Cravens was denied residence in the neighborhood of her choice.

31. Koy Butler is the owner and operator ofHo3, which is a business that offers residential

housing options to people who have disabilities in Pulaski County Arkansas.

32. Mr. Butler the owner of The Ho3 operates a residential home for people with disabilities

in the Leawood subdivision of Little Rock AR.

33. In June 2013 Mr. Butler began to search for a new residential home to renovate and offer

residential housing options to people with disabilities. The house was originally set to

house 3 people with disabilities and a caregiver and would operate identically to the

house in Little Rock AR.



6/13

34. Mr. Butler located a property at 4404 Arlington, North Little Rock, which was similar to

the house in Little Rock, Arkansas, and determined to be an ideal location for people with

disabilities.

35. Prior to the purchase

of

the subject property, Mr. Butler contacted the North Little Rock

planning director, to see what he needed to do to get approval. On

or

about August 8,

2013, Mr. Butler phoned Mr. Voyles, Director ofNorth Little Rock City Planning, about

his desire to purchase a home in North Little Rock to provide residential living options

for people with disabilities.

36. Mr. Voyles asked

if

Mr. Butler would be housing anyone on parole or persons who were

part of an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program. Mr. Butler stated, no . Mr. Voyles

then asked if Mr. Butler would send him a letter identifying the

typ

of people he would

be providing housing for.

37. Mr. Butler provided the requested information explaining he would be providing housing

to 3 elderly people with disabilities.

38. On August 8, 2013, Mr. Butler received approval from Mr. Voyles that Mr Butler's

proposed house complied with the city's definition of farnily as described

in

the North

Little Rock City Code Article 2 Section 2.2.

39. With the city 's approval an offer was made and accepted

on

the home at 4404 Arlington,

North Little Rock.

40. On August 15,2013, Robert Voyles, and the assistant City Attorney Daniel McFadden

withdrew North Little Rock's approval stating they deem the intended use to be a nursing

home or convalescent home, but the area is zoned for a single-family. Mr. Butler

explained that this was not a nursing home or convalescent home and that there should

be

6



7/13

no reason that three individuals with disabilities and a caregiver shouldn't be able to live

together when 5 unrelated individuals without disabilities were free to live in a single

family home.

41. On August 21,2013 Mr. McFadden stated that the purposed home by Mr. Butler would

be a residential care facility/nursing home pursuant to Ark. Code Ann 20-1 0-1703.

42. Ark. Code Ann 20-10-1703(1)(A) states, Assisted living facility means any building

or buildings, section or distinct part of a building, boarding home, home for the aged, or

other residential facility, whether operated for profit or not, which undertakes through its

ownership or management to provide assisted living services for a period exceeding

twenty-four (24) hours to more than three (3) adult residents

of the facility who are not

relatives of the owner or administrator . As Mr. Butler 's proposal was for 3 people with

disabilities and a caregiver Ark. Code Ann 20-1 0-1703 does not apply.

43. NLR had no Fair Housing language

or

reasonable accommodations request for people

with disabilities in the North Little Rock Municipal Code

or

in the City ofNorth Little

Rock Ordinances until March of2014.

44. At end ofAugust 2013, Mr. Butler filed a complaint with the Arkansas Fair Housing

Commission, alleging discrimination by the city

of

North Little Rock.

45. In October of2013 the government shut down occurred delaying any action

on

Mr.

Butler's complaint by the Arkansas Fair Housing Commission.

46. Because of this delay, Mr. Butler decided to proceed under the City ofNorth Little Rock

Zoning Ordinances in the hopes that by providing additional information to the board

they would grant approval and the project could move forward.

7



8/13

47. Under the City

ofNorth

Little Rock Zoning Ordinances Mr. Butler was required to

submit a request for a conditional use permit.

48. After public hearings, much misleading information provided to the public, and public

hostility the re-zoning and special use requests as required by the city officials was

denied.

49. A final decision was made by the North Little Rock City Council on December 23 to not

allow Ho3 to serve people with disabilities in the Lakewood neighborhood

ofNLR.

50. However, the

NLR

city council did suggest the Ho3 was free to open its house in a less

desirable neighborhood in NLR.

51. As a result

of

the Complaint filed with Arkansas Fair Housing commission, in March

2014

NLR

initiated 014-24 which is an amendment to Ordinance 7687.

52. However, even the Arkansas Fair Housing Commission noted this ordinance failed to

comply with the Fair Housing Act and referred the case to the Arkansas Attorney

General's office per Arkansas Code 16-123-326.

53. In June

of2014

Ho3 decided to proceed under the

new

ordinance and requested a

reasonable accommodation.

54. The reasonable accommodation request process is almost identical to the conditional use

permit request Mr. Butler was required to file in August of2013. The only differences

are that the requests are heard by the board of adjustments and not planning and zoning,

and NLR calls it a reasonable accommodation request and has Fair Housing language

(albeit useless language) in its ordinance.

8



9/13

55. The Ho3 has experienced the same type of hostility and misleading information regarding

the proposed Lakewood home under the new ordinance as it received back in December

of2013.

56. NLR simply added Fair Housing language to their variance/land use ordinance, but failed

to amend or develop a process for a reasonable accommodation request that complies

with the Fair Housing Act.

57. Instead, Ho3 is right back where it started in August

of2013

People with disabilities are

no closer to being able to live in the Lakewood neighborhood than they were a year ago,

and

NLR

is free to continue to discriminate against people with disabilities

or

entities

such as House ofThree who are interested in developing neighborhood homes for people

with disabilities to live in.

58. On July 31,2014, the Board ofAdjustment met to discuss Mr. Butler s reasonable

accommodations request, to allow 5 people to live in the Ho3 home at 4404 Arlington,

North Little Rock, Arkansas.

59. Based upon the recording of the meeting it is clear that that the City ofNorth Little Rock

is still practicing discrimination against people with disabilities and businesses who may

wish to provide housing to individuals with disabilities in residential neighborhoods.

60. There was no vote on Mr. Butler s reasonable accommodations request as they could not

get a second from the committee members. Therefore, the request simply died and was

in essence denied without vote.

61. Mr. Butler requested reasons as to the denial but was simply provided a letter stating his

request was denied.



10/13

Claims for Relief

Count

:

The Fair Housing ct

62. The allegations in paragraphs

1 61

are incorporated herein by reference.

63. As a result

o

AD, Mary Beth Cravens, has a mental impairment that substantially limits

one or more o her major life activities such that she is an individual with a disability

within the meaning o the Fair Housing Act 42 U.S.C. 3602(h).

64. The subject property located at 4404 Arlington, North Little Rock, Arkansas, is a

dwelling within the meaning for 42 U.S.C. 3602(b), and the prospective residents o

the home are persons who are handicapped within the meaning

o

42 U.S.C. 3602(h).

65. Through the actions described above, the Defendant has:

a.

Made housing unavailable on the basis

o

disability in violation o 42 U.S.C.

3604(f)(l);

b. Imposed different terms, conditions, or privileges in housing on the basis o

disability in violation

o

42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(2);

c. Failed or refused to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices,

or services when such accommodations may have been necessary to afford

persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling in

violation o the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B); and

d.

Interfered with persons in the exercise or enjoyment of,

or

on account o their

having exercised or enjoyed, or on account o their having aided or encouraged

persons with disabilities in the exercise

or

enjoyment o rights grant or protected

by the Fair Housing Act, in violation o 42 U.S.C. 3617.

66. Defendant's actions above:

10



11/13

a

Constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights

granted by the Fair Housing

ct or

denial

or of

rights protected by the Fair

Housing Act to a group

of

persons, which denial raises

an

issue

of

general public

importance in violation

of

42 U.S.C. 3614(a); and

b. Constitute discriminatory housing practices under 42 U.S.C. 3614(b)(l).

67. Defendant acted intentionally, willfully, and in disregard for the rights of others.

68. There are persons who have been injured by the Defendant's discriminatory actions and

practices who are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. 3602(i), and have

suffered damages as a result

of

the Defendant's conduct.

Count II The Americas with Disabilities Act

69. The allegations I paragraphs 1- 61 are incorporated herein by reference.

70.

s

a result

of

AD, Mary Beth Cravens has a mental impairment that substantially limits

one

or

more

of

her major life activities such that she is an individual with a disability

within the meaning ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(1) and 12131(2) and 28 C.F.R.

35.104.

71. The residents of House

of

3 are qualified individuals with disabilities within the

meaning ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(1) and 12131(2) and 28 C.F.R. 35.104.

72. Defendant is a public entity within the meaning ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12131(1).

73. Defendant's action described above

a. Excluded individuals with disabilities from participation

in

and denied them the

benefits of the services, programs,

or

activities

of

a public entity, in violation

of

Title II ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12132 and 28 C.F.R. 35.130; and



12/13

b

Failed to make reasonable modifications in policies to avoid discrimination in

violation

of

Title II

of

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12132 and 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7).

74. Defendant acted intentionally, willfully, and in disregard for the rights of others.

75. Persons who have been subjected to the Defendant s conduct have suffered and will

continue to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.

WHEREFORE, Koy Butler and Mary Beth Cravens pray the Court enters an ORDER:

a Declaring that the actions of the Defendant described above constitute violations

of

the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., and Title II

ofth

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq.;

b. Enjoining the Defendant, its officers, employees, agents, successors, and all other

persons in active concert or participation with it, from discriminating on the basis

of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with

Disabilities Act;

c

Enjoining Defendant, its officers, employees, agents, successors, and all other

persons in active concert or participation with it, from failing to make reasonable

accommodations in its policies, practices, rules,

or

services, as required by the

Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, including

accommodations that permit the establishment and operation of housing for

persons with disabilities.

d Ordering the Defendant to take all affirmative steps to ensure compliance with the

Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, including steps necessary

to prevent the recurrence of any discriminatory conduct in the future and to

12



13/13

eliminate to the extent practicable the effects of its unlawful housing practices as

described herein;

e. Compensatory and actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

f Punitive damages pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3613; the

Arkansas Fair Housing Act, Ark. Code

Ann

16-123-338.

g Costs and reasonable attorneys fees; and

h Such other and further rel ief as this Court deems

just

and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

~ { Y c ~

Dana McClain

R Bar No. 2001-028

Attorney for Plaintiffs Koy Butler and

Mary Beth Cravens

Biscayne Ct.

Little Rock,

R

72227

501-425-1741 (tel.)

1-866-673-0578 (fax)

dana.mcclainia)att.net

13


North Little Rock Sued for Disability Discrimination

Documents

Transcript of North Little Rock Sued for Disability Discrimination