Reported / Citable
Background
Lauren B. Peña sued her apartment complex, its management company and employees, the Housing Authority of the City of Austin (HACA), and a HACA official on behalf of herself and her minor child. She alleged that defendants failed to accommodate disabilities including PTSD, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis, and retaliated by declining to renew her lease.
Peña’s filings described recurring elevator outages, alleged criminal activity and homeless individuals in her building, and her communications invoking disability laws. She alleged that management offered a lease renewal in November 2025, but issued a nonrenewal notice after she sought renewal in January 2026. She also alleged that HACA and its official failed to intervene after an accessible unit was shown to other prospective renters.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Robert Pitman dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims with prejudice against every defendant. As to the private apartment defendants, the court held that Peña did not plausibly plead a denied reasonable accommodation: she did not allege that management refused to address elevator repairs, and requiring the property to investigate crime or prevent homeless people from entering would fundamentally alter the services the property provides. Her retaliation allegations were conclusory and did not plausibly connect protected activity to the nonrenewal, particularly because the renewal offer had expired before her January 2026 inquiry.
The court dismissed the FHA claim without prejudice against HACA and Heale in his official capacity for lack of jurisdiction, holding that sovereign immunity barred that claim. It dismissed the FHA claim with prejudice against the remaining defendants, including Heale individually. The court also dismissed Peña’s Texas Property Code retaliation claim without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction, denied leave to amend, and declined to initiate Rule 11 sanctions proceedings while warning Peña that future mischaracterizations of authority or frivolous filings could result in sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- A disability-housing complaint must identify a requested reasonable accommodation, its necessity, and the defendant’s refusal.
- Allegations of protected activity and a lease nonrenewal, without facts supporting causation, do not plausibly plead retaliation.
- FHA claims against HACA and its official-capacity employee were barred by sovereign immunity; remaining state-law claims were left for state court.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the pleading specificity required for disability-accommodation and retaliation claims involving residential housing. General complaints about building conditions and references to disability statutes do not substitute for factual allegations tying a requested accommodation to a known disability and a defendant’s refusal.
It also underscores that claims against a governmental housing authority require attention to sovereign immunity and the particular statutory basis for liability.