Reasonable Modification Rights Drastically Restricted in Michigan
The Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) and the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) permit persons with disabilities to request reasonable modifications to their dwelling units and common areas as necessary to ameliorate the effects of their disabilities. Common reasonable modifications include installing ramps to the entrances of dwelling units and adding grab bars in bathrooms.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, in the published decision of In re Romig, Nos. 347653 & 384653 (Oct. 15, 2020), narrowly
ery
construed the reasonable accommodation provision of the PWDCRA. The case involved a seventy-six-year-old man with limited ability to stand and walk. A reasonable modification request was made to install a railing on the front porch and adjacent stairs at his home. According to the Court of Appeals, a housing provider may be required to grant a reasonable modification request only if the request is submitted at the time of the original sale, exchange, rental, or lease of the dwelling. Should a person after taking possession of housing (i.e., post-acquisition) later becomes disabled and in need of a reasonable modification, the request need not be granted. Further, only the individual personally making the sale, exchange, rent, or lease is entitled to any disability-related reasonable modification or protections under the PWDCRA.
The decision ignores the word “occupied” in Section 506a(1)(a) of the PWDCRA, which expressly permits “reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person with a disability if those modifications may be necessary to afford the person with a disability full enjoyment of the premises.” The Michigan legislature enacted Section 506a of the PWDCRA to make sure that Michigan law remains consistent with the FHA, which entitles persons with disabilities to request “reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied” (emphasis added), whenever warranted by medical conditions, irrespective of whether the request is submitted pre- and post-acquisition, or by an owner, tenant, or occupant of a dwelling unit.
This language in FHA and the PWDCRA makes sense, as individuals may develop disabilities as a result of illnesses, injuries, the aging process, and other life events–long after an individual begins dwelling in a housing unit. The Court of Appeals’ decision, unfortunately, deprives disability protections to one of Michigan’s most vulnerable populations.
Plaintiffs in the case have filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. The Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit, along with the Fair Housing Centers of Southeast & Mid Michigan, Southwest Michigan, and West Michigan, have filed an amicus brief urging the Michigan Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision and statutory construction. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights have also filed an amicus brief in support of the Application for Leave to Appeal.
It may take 4-6 months or more for the Michigan Supreme Court to issue its ruling in the case, given the Court’s heavy docket.
