The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits housing providers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of protected classes including disability, such as the failure to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619.
Today, landlords are facing an increased exposure to mold-related claims. Within the medical community there is a growing debate as to who is susceptible to mold-related illnesses and what constitutes a clinical diagnosis of such conditions.Additionally, some medical providers have noted that mold is not even an allergen, except for those who have, for example, asthma or other respiratory conditions that could be aggravated by mold or, in rare cases, individuals who are severely immunocompromised.
When a claimed disability is not visibly apparent, such as asthma, the Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, “Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act” (HUD/DOJ Joint Statement) states that housing providers are permitted to request reliable disability-related information from the tenant that (1) is necessary to verify that the person meets the FHA’s definition of disability (in this case has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities); (2) describes the needed accommodation; and (3) shows the relationship between the person’s disability and the need for the requested accommodation. This information may be provided by the individual (e.g., proof of receipt of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits), a doctor or medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service agency, or a “reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual’s disability.”
Also, there is the question of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation according to the FHA. Accommodations are considered unreasonable if they impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the housing provider or would fundamentally alter the nature of the provider’s operations. This analysis is conducted on a case-by-case basis, involving factors such as (1) the cost of the requested accommodation; (2) the financial resources of the housing provider; (3) the benefits that the accommodation would provide to the requester; and (4) the availability of alternative accommodations that would meet the requester’s disability-related needs.
Recent Cases
Many recent cases have addressed these issues when tenants claim to have been denied reasonable accommodations for disabilities allegedly affected by mold or other environmental toxins. One such lawsuit was filed in February 2025 by the City of Buffalo, New York, which sued housing provider Towne Housing, LLC and the property owner in connection with complaints by local resident Kazziyya Carter to her landlord regarding mold exposure.
In 2020, Carter reported mold in her unit to her landlord, which was remediated. Thereafter, Carter reported that the mold had returned, and that additional remediation was necessary as “she was experiencing health issues…she believed to be related to the mold and mildew.” Carter further alleged that her son developed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a result of mold exposure.
In July 2022, Carter underwent testing and claimed that she was diagnosed with “toxic mold exposure,” after which she claims she “informed defendants of her medical diagnosis…and requested a full abatement of mold…to bring an end to her symptoms.” Carter also stopped paying rent, so eviction proceedings were commenced. Thereafter, the city filed an administrative complaint alleging that the defendant landlord discriminated against Carter by denying her reasonable accommodation request of additional mold remediation and then retaliated against her by evicting her. An investigation was conducted, after which a finding of “probable cause” was issued. Conciliation efforts failed and the lawsuit, which is ongoing, was then filed. (See City of Buffalo v. Towne Housing, LLC et al., 802971/2025, New York State, Erie County, Supreme Court).
In Fedynich v. Stalkfleet, the plaintiffs in Iowa federal court alleged that the defendants failed to accommodate their myriad disabilities by denying them multiple reasonable accommodations, including purchasing and installing fresh air sensors, enforcing the policy against smoking, switching pest control products, and transferring them to a different unit. [See Fedynich v. Stalkfleet, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95536 (N.D. IA, May 20, 2025)]. The plaintiffs stated that they received Social Security disability benefits because of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and autoimmune diseases, though they both claimed to have numerous other medical issues. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that (1) plaintiffs did not have qualifying disabilities, (2) there was no nexus between their claimed disabilities and the accommodations requested, and (3) plaintiffs did not show that the requested accommodations were necessary or reasonable.
In assessing whether the plaintiffs qualified as disabled pursuant to the FHA, the court acknowledged that individuals who receive social security benefits usually qualify as disabled. [Citing Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Hous. Auth., 865 F.Supp. 2d 307, 338 (E.D. NY 2012)]. However, it noted that plaintiffs did not provide any evidence of their purported medical conditions, “which makes it impossible for me to find them disabled under FHA standards.” It further described, “plaintiffs appear to allege that their reasonable accommodation requests relate to asthma and chemical sensitivities, yet they admit they do not receive Social Security disability benefits for these conditions.”
Notably, the court stated that receipt of Social Security disability benefits for one condition “does not automatically qualify a person as handicapped under the FHA for a different condition.” [Citing Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard Cnty., Md., 124 F.3d 597, 604 (4th Cir. 1997)]. The court then noted that, “[w]here asthma is the alleged handicap, courts must assess whether the specific facts alleged support the conclusion that asthma substantially limits a person’s major life activities...” and the “same determination must be made regarding alleged chemical sensitivities.” [Quoting Ricketts v. Westwood Condo Ass’n., No. 23-CV-01079 (SVN), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61595 at 8 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2025) and citing Matarese v. Archstone Pentagon City, 795 F.Supp. 2d, 402, 432-33 (E.D. VA 2011)].
While the Fedynich plaintiffs claimed that their asthma and chemical sensitivities affected their breathing, the court stated that they provided no evidence of this. Instead, the plaintiffs only provided two medical accommodation letters, neither pertaining to respiratory issues. Based on the limited evidence, the court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that they were disabled within the meaning of the FHA and failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to defendants’ alleged failure to provide them with reasonable accommodations, noting that plaintiffs’ accommodation requests were “either unreasonable, unnecessary, or not supported by the factual record.” As such, it granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to these claims.
The Fedynich case makes clear that receipt of Social Security disability benefits alone does not necessarily mean individuals have a disability that is related to the accommodation that has been requested. Further, the Fedynich case stands for the proposition that having asthma and/or chemical sensitivities alone may qualify an individual as disabled within the meaning of the FHA, but not necessarily.
In a 2017 matter, Holden v. East Hampton Town et al., the plaintiffs claimed that defendants failed to accommodate their disabilities in connection with habitability issues by, in part, failing to remediate mold. [See Holden v. East Hampton Town et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53135 (E.D. NY 2017)]. Specifically, they allege that they are disabled by virtue of their “respiratory limitations, asthma, and health limitations,” lung cancer, and mold in one of the plaintiff’s eyes, and that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate these disabilities. They further claim to have “indicated to defendants that they were suffering health conditions, which their treating doctors ascribed to … large concentrations of mold.”
The court in Holden held that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that defendants were aware of their alleged disabilities. Regardless, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege any specific request for an accommodation. While the plaintiffs claimed that their demands for mold remediation constituted the requests, the court noted that the failure to make reasonable accommodations pertains only to those accommodations that afford individuals an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their dwelling. It then held that plaintiffs were not requesting an accommodation to put them on equal footing with other residents, but challenging the conditions at the property as a whole, and that it was “apparent that Plaintiffs are simply attempting to re-package allegations regarding habitability as a failure to accommodate claim, an attempt that fails.” The Holden court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ FHA claim.
A 2023 Virginia court analyzed similar issues in Graves v. Foulger-Pratt Cos., LLC. In Graves, the plaintiff alleged that her bedroom carpet was “saturated with toxic substances” that caused her to feel ill. [See Graves v. Foulger-Pratt Cos., LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131246 (E.D. Va, May 18, 2023)]. She then claimed to have notified the property manager and requested air testing and a new carpet. A contractor retained by the defendant subsequently inspected the plaintiff’s unit, concluding there was no mold, but the plaintiff was unsatisfied. The plaintiff then asserted to have visited two doctors who determined that she did not have asthma and that mold was not found in her blood, though she should keep her airways open when inside her apartment. She then continued to express concerns to management about alleged toxins. The defendant next retained another contractor to inspect the plaintiff’s unit, but the plaintiff disputed the report. The defendant also transferred her to a new unit at the property without a penalty.
The Graves plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for her disability, which she stated was an “inability to breathe.” In response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted, as the court noted: (1) plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that she was disabled under the FHA; (2) plaintiff alleged that doctors informed her she did not have asthma or mold in her blood; (3) plaintiff failed to plead facts to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between her alleged disability and the denial of reasonable accommodations; and (4) the complaint contained no facts to indicate that defendant denied plaintiff a unit transfer.
Issues in Testing
These cases regarding mold exposure also impact another issue with mold-related reasonable accommodation cases concerning testing. Residents are providing housing providers with purported positive mold tests from “do it yourself” mold test kits that are not conducted by a professional under controlled conditions. However, as has been noted, many tests are not FDA-approved … and they lack standardization.”
As more claims are made concerning mold-related illnesses, housing providers may see an influx of corresponding reasonable accommodation requests. Indeed, this is an area of fair housing law that could become like the “Wild West” insofar as the HUD/DOJ Joint Statement indicates that verification of the disability-related need for an accommodation may be provided by individuals with no medical training.
Housing providers should remember that they are permitted to request verification of the disability-related need for any reasonable accommodation request concerning mold or other environmental toxins when such need is not readily apparent. However, they must carefully consider whether any such verification meets the standards set forth in the HUD/ DOJ Joint Statement. They also may deny a request if granting it would impose an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of its business. This analysis is made on a case-by-case basis and should be done in consultation with experienced fair housing counsel.