Case Files: When Mold, Disability, and Retaliation Collide – Episode 45

When health concerns, especially mold issues, overlap with legal responsibilities, property managers must tread carefully. A recent fair housing case filed by the City of Buffalo serves as a critical example of how mold exposure, accommodation requests, and potential retaliation can collide—creating a high-risk situation for housing providers. In this article, we break down the case details and offer practical takeaways for staying compliant with fair housing laws.

Mold Exposure, Tenant Health Complaints, and Understanding the Legalities

In this case, a long-term tenant in Buffalo began experiencing serious health issues, which she attributed to mold in her rental home. Over time, her condition was diagnosed as toxic mold exposure. In response, the tenant requested mold remediation—not just as a standard maintenance request but as a reasonable accommodation for her disability under the Fair Housing Act and the Buffalo City Code.

The distinction between a typical repair and an accommodation request is significant. Once a tenant connects a health issue to a disability, housing providers are required to consider whether accommodations are necessary to allow the tenant full use and enjoyment of the property. In this case, the tenant’s mold remediation request was treated as such. However, despite an initial remediation effort in 2020, the tenant continued to experience symptoms and reported them multiple times through 2022.

Eviction Following a Code Complaint: Why Timing Matters

After receiving no further remediation, the tenant contacted code enforcement. Within a week, she was served with a notice of non-renewal. According to the City of Buffalo’s complaint, this sequence of events suggests that the eviction was not based on a lease violation but may have been retaliation for her complaints and accommodation request. The city also alleged that remediation was only completed after the tenant had already been evicted, not during her tenancy.

The property owners countered by stating they had attempted to begin repairs and served a notice of entry, but the tenant refused to grant access. This refusal, acknowledged by the tenant, raises important questions. However, fair housing law considers not only actions but also the timing and perception of those actions. An adverse action that follows closely on the heels of a tenant exercising their legal rights can be interpreted as retaliatory, even if unintended.

Best Practices for Property Management and Fair Housing Compliance

This case serves as a powerful reminder that property managers must take all health complaints seriously and assess whether they may fall under fair housing protections. Accommodation requests—especially those supported by medical documentation—require more than a routine response. A meaningful and timely dialogue is essential.

Clear and consistent communication, properly documented efforts, and fair application of policies can help defend against claims of retaliation. Housing providers should also train their teams on how to identify reasonable accommodation requests and respond appropriately to avoid legal missteps.

Final Thoughts on Preventing Fair Housing Violations

Fair housing compliance goes beyond simply managing maintenance issues. It requires awareness, documentation, and a commitment to ensuring all residents can enjoy their homes safely. When facing health-related complaints and accommodation requests, it’s critical to respond proactively and avoid any appearance of retaliation. Doing so not only protects your residents—it protects your organization from costly legal consequences.

You Might Also Like: