Hi again and thank you for your patience.
With regard to your post:
I received a letter from my uncle's retirement community stating that he was no longer appropriate for their independent living facility. He 88, no functional mobility (wheelchair) and dementia. For 4 years has had 24 hour care provided by agency and private providers. The current resident policy states that a resident can only have 24 hour care on a temporary basis (no longer than 4 months). The residency contract my uncle signed in 2004 only states that,should a resident need supervised care, the facility is not licensed to provide and would ask the resident to leave. Our point is that he is receiving such care through private means and therefore is not a burden upon the facility or other residents. I understand, and that is important. Is he bound by the contract he signed or by the current contract ? He WOULD be bound by whatever contract is currently in force IF it were not illegally discriminating against the disabled, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Read below for the case law and additional helpful reading. Thank you. XXXXX XXXXXX Very welcome.
I have found the precedential NY case which has been followed by later courts, causing residential homes to be enjoined from even having any independent living requirements for tenancy. In fact, at times, the lawsuit has hit the facilities in the wallet, big time, before also ridding them of such "independent living" requirements.
Cason v. Rochester Housing Authority, 748 F. Supp. 1002 (W.D.N.Y. 1990) (link)
In this case, discrimination occurred when 3 people were required to be able to live “independently”, and they did not have that ability, due to a disability. The three plaintiffs claimed that their applications for low-income housing were
denied because of physical or mental disability. The housing authority’s eligibility
requirements included the “ability to live independently.” The court determined that the
Fair Housing Act was violated in as much as the defendants denied housing only to disabled applicants on the basis of an inability to live independently; no non-disabled persons were denied housing on this basis. The court ruled that this was not the least
discriminating way to ensure resident safety.
Here is a great article describing how this “living independently” requirement tends to be illegal, citing to New York's Cason case, and additional cases regarding the Fair Housing Act and the prohibition on discriminating against those that can not live independently. I hope this helps! Let me know if you need follow up before or after RATING me. And PLEASE know that my job depends on a POSITIVE rating now and at least an 8-10 feedback rating later. Thanks! I won't forget your support.
I think this is what you wanted to know. If not, please let me know and we can interact further. Otherwise, I wish you the best and ask that you Rate me now. HINT: I aim to provide only EXCELLENT SERVICE
and ask that you click a rating on the RIGHT side of the choices OR, follow up with me if you need more follow up or clarification. AND, WHEN YOU DO RATE ME POSITIVELY, PLEASE SEND ME A REPLY LETTING ME KNOW YOU ARE DOING SO, SO WE CAN ENSURE IT GETS RECORDED. THANKS! You can ask for me directly in the future by starting your post with "To Alexia Esq." Or bookmark this page, and go to: http://www.justanswer.com/law/expert-AlexiaEsq/
Repeat reminder: Due to rules of our states, nothing herein is intended as legal advice, only intended as general information in order that you may have a starting point for helping yourself and presenting your issue to your lawyer if need be. I am an Attorney in the U.S. but I am not your attorney.