Hunter Ex Rel. A.H. v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that FHA \ 'failure to accommodate' claims do not require proof of intentional discrimination\
• holding that homeless shelter was a public accommodation under D.C. Code
• stating that where the DCHRA language parallels analogous provisions of the FHA, the “section of the DCHRA and the FHA should be interpreted in a parallel fashion”
• stating that failure-to-accommodate claims “do not require proof of intentional discrimination”
• \The Court agrees and concludes that the same rationale prevents [several other discrimination statutes] from serving as the basis of a negligence per se claim[.]\
• anti-discrimination statutes like FHA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act are not designed to “promote public safety” or prevent physical harm but to combat discrimination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).