Facts

Plaintiff Rodney Green Sr., filed suit against defendants Mercy Housing, Inc., Mercy Housing Management Group Inc., and Mercy Housing California XXXVIII, LP alleging disability discrimination, intentional discrimination based on race and retaliation/harassment.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff, a former tenant at defendant's affordable housing complex, contended defendants failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations in the form of accessible parking and by not allowing his son, who was not permitted on the property, to be his in-home caretaker. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated (1) California's Disabled Person's Act; (2) California's Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) the Fair Housing Act; and (4) California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiff also contended defendants harassed and retaliated against plaintiff, which violated California Government Code Section 12955. Plaintiff contended defendants unlawfully interfered with him and thus violated CGC Section 12955.7. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of his race, and retaliated against him for contacting the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that at all times during his tenancy at defendant's apartment complex, plaintiff and his two, adult co-tenant sons had the use of three assigned parking spaces, all of which plaintiff saw prior to signing the lease. They contended that two of those parking spaces were the closest available to plaintiff's apartment and were in the same row as two, additional, disabled parking spaces that were also available for plaintiff's use. Further, they contended that no other parking spaces became available during plaintiff's tenancy. Defendants argued that they did not deny plaintiff the ability to receive in-home care. Rather, after it was discovered that another of plaintiff's sons (not a signatory to the lease) was an unauthorized occupant of plaintiff's apartment and was suspected of illegal activity, defendants barred the son from the property. Furthermore, they argued that plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at the time, agreed that this son would not be allowed on defendant's property. Defendants lastly contended that plaintiff was ultimately evicted from the property for his violation of a Stipulation and Order requiring him to timely pay his rent.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims.