In Baptist Homes, Inc. v. City of Madison, Civil Action 3:24-CV-92-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss. Oct. 2, 2024), the district court said an entity can assert a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Baptist Homes is a nonprofit that provides support for adults with intellectual, developmental or other disabilities. That includes providing private residences and assisting allow independent living as much as possible. Baptist Homes bought a home for four adults who had been living together as a family elsewhere. These four adults were going to lease the home. However, apparently some folks did not like this.

Baptist Homes received a letter from the City of Madison Director of Community Development informing that the house was only zoned for single-family residential. Baptist followed up and explained the circumstances but was told to follow up with the City Attorney. Baptist Homes made repeated calls to the City Attorney, but the calls were never returned. So Baptist went back to the City Director but again it was referred to the City Attorney. Baptist Homes wrote a letter this time to the City Attorney but again there was no response to the letter. Finally, after getting nowhere and never hearing from the City Attorney, Baptist Homes filed a lawsuit seeking damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

Madison filed a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure alleging no standing, and failure to state a claim.  It also filed a motion for a more definite statement under rule 12(e). As to the standing issue, the court noted that Baptist Homes had alleged an injury fairly traceable to the actions of the defendant and it was redressable by a favorable decision. Accordingly there was standing under the Constitution. It was also alleged there as no standing under the ADA because Baptist Homes was not a "qualified individual with a disability" quoting 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12132).  The court found that argument confused Article III standing which is jurisdictional with statutory standing which is not.

As to the motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), Madison again argued that Baptist Homes was not a “qualified individual” with a disability and thus it may not sue. In response the court pointed out, “But the City ignores the operative statutory provision. Title II's enforcement provision authorizes suit by ‘any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.' 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (emphasis added). That plain language ‘does not limit [Title II's] remedies to individuals with disabilities.' A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, 515 F.3d 356, 363 (4th Cir. 2008).” Baptist Homes, Inc. v. City of Madison, at *5.

The City also argued that this was an impermissible commercial enterprise, and it had a right to regulate through zoning. This too fell on deaf ears as the court notably held that the City failed to respond to Baptist Homes “reasonable accommodation” request. Lastly the City argued that Baptist Homes had no damages but in fact it had uncollected rent, as it had let the people stay in the home for free pending resolution of the matter.

Last of all the motion for more definite statement was not well received. The court ruled, “Baptist Homes' 14-page Complaint is far from unintelligible. It is detailed and clear. The Court has every confidence that the City can ‘properly understand' it and ‘properly respond.'”

Matthew 5:25 comes to mind, “Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge … .” ESV.  So far this sounds like a case that should be resolved. For now the Baptist Homes case will proceed, but given the authority cited, it looks like an entity can bring an ADA claim.