Last week, Vermont's Supreme Court ruled in a case that advocates say has major implications for people with disabilities.
The case involves St. Johnsbury resident Nicole Stone, who uses a wheelchair. Her family requested a zoning variance to make their home more accessible during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the town denied. The Stones then filed a discrimination suit with the help of the Human Rights Commission, a state agency tasked with protecting civil rights.
To learn more about this case, Vermont Public's Mary Williams Engisch sat down with the Vermont Human Rights Commission's Executive Director Big Hartman. This interview was produced for the ear. We highly recommend listening to the audio. We’ve also provided a transcript, which has been edited for length and clarity.
Mary Williams Engisch: I understand that this case involves a family building a structure so that they could meet their caseworker while abiding by COVID-19 safety standards. Can you fill in some more of the details about this particular case?
Big Hartman: Sure. So this family, the child has a motorized wheelchair, and it was a pretty small house. So, it was very difficult for them to really have anyone into the house with the motorized wheelchair and maintain social distancing.
So the solution that the family came up with was to have some type of covered structure just outside the ramp from the house, so that the wheelchair could be safe from precipitation on one of the only really flat surfaces, flat areas of their property. They really felt it was a temporary structure. It didn't have a foundation or anything.
Mary Williams Engisch: The Human Rights Commission got involved in this case. Can you sort of give me some background on that too?
Big Hartman: The family was alerted that there was a concern that where the structure was located was in violation of the setback rules for the town of St. Johnsbury. They were advised by the zoning administrator to file for a variance. They felt that the variance request was, essentially, a reasonable accommodation request. It was an accommodation to be, sort of, exempted from the zoning requirements, so that they could accommodate the needs of a person with a disability. When the zoning board just resoundingly denied the variance without any exception or invitation to come back, or any changes they wanted to see done to grant the variance, the family came to the Human Rights Commission.
They felt it was a violation of the right to have a reasonable accommodation for a disability, and we conducted an investigation. At the end of that investigation, the Human Rights Commission had a determination that there was reasonable grounds to believe that the Fair Housing Act had been violated by the failure to accommodate. And exercising our enforcement authority, we filed a suit in Superior Court to protect the rights of this family that had been seeking this reasonable accommodation.
Mary Williams Engisch: Then the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in favor last week of the Human Rights Commission's discrimination case. Can you contextualize what last week's ruling means for Vermonters with disabilities?
We are really pleased that the decision clarifies the broad mandate of the Human Rights Commission to enforce anti-discrimination protections, especially the right to reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.Big Hartman, executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission
Big Hartman: Well, this is not a final decision in the case. What had happened in the Superior Court was that the town, right away, moved to dismiss the case. The town was arguing throughout this process that the Human Rights Commission did not have authority under the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act to investigate or enforce this particular action, because it is, according to the town, the sole authority of the environmental court to rule on a variance decision like this.
We felt that the Superior Court had really gotten it wrong by dismissing that case. Because the dismissal by the Superior Court, basically, would have deprived the ability of the commission to challenge any DRB decisions, if they're discriminatory. And then would severely limit any remedies available for housing discrimination, because the Human Rights Commission, and anybody else, would only be able to go to the environmental court for challenging a variance.
We are really pleased that the decision clarifies the broad mandate of the Human Rights Commission to enforce anti-discrimination protections, especially the right to reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. We know how many barriers in housing people with disabilities have, especially people with mobility challenges that require use of wheelchairs and other devices. And it's really important that those folks know that the Human Rights Commission is a place for their rights in housing to be affirmed and protected.
More from Vermont Public: Adapting to life after a spinal cord injury
Mary Williams Engisch: What precedent do you believe that the Supreme Court ruling sets for the future?
Big Hartman: We are pleased that the precedent that's being set with this decision is to make crystal clear that the civil division is the place that fair housing and public accommodations claims will be brought.
The other important impact of this decision is that development review boards and other municipal actions involving zoning are now very clearly a subject for Human Rights Commission investigations and potential enforcement actions in Superior Court.
And it really affirms the broader remedies for those types of challenges that are available only under the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act and are not available under the environmental variance statutes, things like civil penalties for violations of the act, monetary damages for pain and suffering, injunctions against discrimination.
Mary Williams Engisch: After this Vermont Supreme Court ruling, what happens next in the Stone case?
Big Hartman: What's going to happen next is we're going to be back at the very early stages of this litigation in Superior Court.
As you may know, about a year ago, the Human Rights Commission was able to fill a brand new position in our office, of a full-time litigator. So, that attorney, Mitch Rotbert, will be advancing our claims in the Superior Court. This case has been going on for many years, and we hope not to see any more delays.
Have questions, comments or tips? Send us a message.
