Community associations regularly receive requests from residents seeking accommodations for medical conditions. While many requests involve emotional support animals, accessible parking, or physical modifications to a unit, some residents request restrictions on pesticides, cleaning chemicals, fragrances, or other substances because of a claimed chemical sensitivity. These requests can place boards in a difficult position, as they must balance one resident’s disability-related needs against the association’s obligation to maintain the common elements and protect the interests of the community as a whole.
Madej v. Maiden, 951 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2020), a Sixth Circuit case, applies the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and provides useful guidance on when chemical sensitivity may qualify as a disability and on an association’s obligations in responding to scent-related accommodation requests.
What Does the Fair Housing Act Require for Chemical Sensitivity Accommodations?
FHA prohibits discrimination in housing because of a disability. Requests under the FHA are for either a reasonable accommodation (an exception to a rule or policy) or a reasonable modification (a physical change to property). Madejinvolves a request for reasonable accommodation.
The goal of reasonable accommodation rules, policies, practices, or services is to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim, a resident generally must show:
- that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the FHA;
- that the association knew or reasonably should have known of the disability;
- that the requested accommodation was necessary to afford equal use and enjoyment of the property; and
- that the requested accommodation was reasonable.
What Happened in Madej v. Maiden?
In Madej, the plaintiffs claimed that Cynthia Madej suffered from multiple chemical sensitivities and asked the county to use a different road resurfacing method because they believed asphalt fumes would worsen her condition and interfere with her use and enjoyment of her home. They argued that the county’s refusal to make this change violated the FHA by denying a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Madej’s disability.
A central issue was whether the plaintiffs could present reliable evidence that the requested accommodation was necessary. The district court excluded the plaintiff’s expert testimony under the Daubert standard[1], which permits only expert opinions based on reliable methods and scientific principles. Without admissible expert evidence establishing a causal connection between the asphalt fumes and Ms. Madej’s alleged chemical sensitivity, the plaintiffs could not show that the requested accommodation was necessary because of her disability.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, explaining that an FHA reasonable accommodation claim requires more than merely asserting a disability—it requires competent evidence that the requested accommodation is necessary because of that disability.
Is Chemical Sensitivity a Disability Under the Fair Housing Act?
There is no single, universally accepted medical or legal definition of “chemical sensitivity.” The term is used broadly to describe individuals who report adverse symptoms after exposure to low levels of common environmental chemicals, such as fragrances, cleaning products, pesticides, paint fumes, tobacco smoke, or building materials, that do not affect most people. A 2018 study estimated that 25.9% of U.S. adults (approximately 51.8 million people) reported having a chemical sensitivity, while 12.8% (approximately 25.6 million adults) reported having been medically diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).[2]
Neither the FHA nor the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal agency charged with implementing and enforcing the FHA, has a formal medical definition for “chemical sensitivity”. However, as early as 1992, HUD guidance[3] acknowledged an increase in housing discrimination complaints involving MCS and instructed investigators to evaluate such claims on an individualized basis to determine whether the claimant satisfied the FHA’s definition of disability.
Around the same time, courts began recognizing that MCS could support a reasonable accommodation claim under appropriate circumstances. In Lincoln Realty Management Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission[4], the court held that a tenant with MCS could pursue a fair housing claim where reasonable accommodations were denied, while the Department of Justice later pursued similar allegations under the FHA in United States v. Association of Apartment Owners of Dominis West[5], demonstrating that federal enforcement agencies viewed MCS-related accommodation requests as potentially protected under fair housing laws.
How is Madej situated within the broader FHA framework
Early housing decisions, such as Lincoln Realty and Dominis West, addressed whether housing providers could be required to accommodate individuals with MCS. The Sixth Circuit later developed the broader legal framework governing disability discrimination and reasonable accommodations under the FHA. In Smith & Lee Associates, Inc. v. City of Taylor[6] and Howard v. City of Beavercreek[7], the court emphasized that disability determinations require an individualized inquiry, while Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Association[8] confirmed that homeowners’ associations are subject to the FHA’s reasonable accommodation requirements. These decisions provide the doctrinal backdrop against which Madej was decided.
Against this backdrop, the Sixth Circuit addressed reasonable accommodations in the community association context in Davis v. Echo Valley Condominium Association[9]. There, the court assumed the plaintiff’s asthma and history of MCS constituted a qualifying disability but held that requiring a condominium association to prohibit smoking throughout the community was not a reasonable accommodation because it would fundamentally alter the association’s policies and the property rights of other owners. The following year, Madej v. Maiden addressed a different threshold issue—whether the plaintiff had presented sufficiently reliable expert evidence to establish MCS as the claimed disability. Together, Davisand Madej demonstrate that a successful FHA accommodation claim requires both a qualifying disability supported by competent evidence and a requested accommodation that is necessary and reasonable.
What Does Madej Mean for Michigan Community Associations?
Although Madej did not involve a condominium or homeowners association, its analysis provides useful guidance for community associations evaluating accommodation requests based on chemical sensitivity because it reinforces that associations may evaluate both the existence of a qualifying disability and whether the requested accommodation is necessary and reasonable under the Fair Housing Act.
When a co-owner requests an accommodation related to chemical sensitivity, the board should recognize the request as a potential reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act rather than simply as a bylaw violation. The board should engage in the interactive process to determine whether the resident has a qualifying disability, whether there is a connection between the disability and the requested accommodation, whether the accommodation is necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, whether it is reasonable, and whether it would impose an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the association’s operations.
Throughout this process, boards should engage legal counsel early to evaluate potential legal obligations, assess liability, and mitigate legal risks associated with handling accommodation requests. Boards should also document their communications and decision-making, request appropriate supporting documentation when the disability or disability-related need is not readily apparent, and evaluate each request on its individual merits. Consistent with Madej, accommodation requests involving chemical sensitivity should not be accepted or denied based on generalized assumptions or solely on an individual’s self-report of the condition, but rather on the specific facts and reliable supporting documentation presented.
Boards should avoid adopting blanket policies either approving or denying accommodations involving chemical sensitivities, but instead consider the following when evaluating requests:
- whether sufficient medical documentation supports the claimed disability;
- whether the requested accommodation is necessary for the resident’s equal use and enjoyment of the property;
- whether less burdensome alternatives are available;
- whether granting the request would interfere with the association’s maintenance obligations or contractual responsibilities; and
- whether the request would adversely affect the rights of other residents.
Key Takeaways for Michigan Condo and HOA Boards
Chemical sensitivity presents unique challenges because it often involves conditions that are not readily observable and may require careful evaluation of both medical documentation and the requested accommodation. Madej does not hold that individuals with chemical sensitivity are excluded from the protections of the Fair Housing Act. Rather, it reinforces that FHA accommodation claims must be supported by competent evidence establishing a qualifying disability and demonstrating that the requested accommodation is necessary and reasonable.
For Michigan condominium and homeowners’ associations, the decision underscores the importance of engaging in an individualized, evidence-based analysis of each accommodation request while balancing the rights of the requesting resident with the association’s obligations to the community as a whole. Boards facing a chemical sensitivity accommodation request should consult experienced Michigan community association counsel before approving or denying it. The attorneys at Hirzel Law, PLC regularly advise condominium and homeowners association boards on Fair Housing Act compliance and reasonable accommodation requests.
Sources
[1] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) – “the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but also reliable.”
[2] Anne Steinemann, National Prevalence and Effects of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, 60 J. Occupational & Env’t Med. e152 (2018).
[3] U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., Office of Gen. Counsel, Legal Op. GME-0009, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Disorder and Environmental Illness as Handicaps 1–2 (Mar. 5, 1992) (concluding that multiple chemical sensitivity and environmental illness can constitute handicaps under the Fair Housing Act and that such claims should be evaluated based on the facts of each case).
[4] Lincoln Realty Mgmt. Co. v. Pa. Hum. Rels. Comm’n, 598 A.2d 594 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991).
[5] United States v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Dominis W., No. CV 03-00536 SOM-LEK (D. Haw. filed Sept. 29, 2003) (consent decree entered Apr. 20, 2004).
[6] Smith & Lee Assocs., Inc. v. City of Taylor, 13 F.3d 920 (6th Cir. 1993).
[7] Howard v. City of Beavercreek, 276 F.3d 802 (6th Cir. 2002).
[8] Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass’n, 760 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2014).
[9] Davis v. Echo Valley Condo. Ass’n, 945 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2019).
