The Vermont Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of the Human Rights Commission, reversing a lower court decision on a discrimination lawsuit the commission had filed against the town of St. Johnsbury.
The commission, a state body that works to promote civil and human rights in Vermont, has argued the town’s development review board discriminated against St. Johnsbury resident Nicole Stone during the Covid-19 pandemic by denying a variance for a home structure in violation of the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act.
A lower court judge dismissed that case in January — agreeing with the town’s argument that its decision should be final because Stone never appealed the decision to the environmental court.
Exclusive jurisdiction for the discrimination suit lay with the state environmental court and couldn’t be argued in the lower court, Superior Court Judge Timothy B. Tomasi wrote at the time. Any decision otherwise would be an “impermissible” challenge on the variance decision.
But, after hearing arguments in the matter in September, the Supreme Court justices remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. Chief Justice Paul Reiber wrote in the court’s decision that the Human Rights Commission should not be barred from bringing a discrimination suit in the court’s civil division.
“Ruling otherwise would deprive the commission of any ability to participate and undermine the multi-layered enforcement authority that the Legislature has created,” Reiber wrote.
Big Hartman, the commission’s executive director, in a statement said the decision “marks a major victory for individuals with disabilities in Vermont.”
“Today’s decision clarifies the broad mandate of the commission to enforce anti-discrimination protections, including the right to reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities,” Hartman said. “Municipalities and their development review boards must understand that if they refuse to grant reasonable accommodation requests made by individuals with disabilities, that refusal is subject to independent review by the commission, and possible enforcement action in civil court.”
Stone, who uses an electric wheelchair, sought a zoning variance for an outdoor gazebo-like structure during the Covid-19 pandemic to allow her and members of her household to meet outdoors with caregivers and case workers while protecting the wheelchair from rain or mud.
Stone and members of her household said they couldn’t meet with caregivers inside her home at the time because there wasn’t enough space to keep a safe distance from each other, according to court documents.
Neighbors complained to the town’s zoning administrator that the structure, which had already been built, violated setback requirements, according to court documents. A member of Stone’s household then sought a variance — essentially a request for an exemption from those requirements — but the body denied the request.
VTDigger was not able to reach Stone for comment.
The Human Rights Commission later filed a discrimination complaint last year against St. Johnsbury in Washington County Superior Court’s civil division. But the trial court concluded there was no meaningful way it could rule on the suit because the town couldn’t separate the discrimination claim from the question of whether the variance should have been granted.
The commission’s attorneys argued during the Supreme Court hearing that the claim that the town discriminated against Stone is separate from Stone’s variance claim — and the superior court should rule on the former.
The Supreme Court agreed, but stressed the decision “does not disturb our prior cases recognizing the finality of DRB decisions,” Reiber wrote.
The high court’s conclusion, Reiber wrote in the decision, rests on the premise that the “commission’s suit would not necessarily undermine the finality of the DRB’s decision because at least some of the commission’s proposed remedies would leave the final DRB decision undisturbed.”
The commission is not seeking to overturn the development review board’s decision, and its requests for injunctive relief “are purely prospective, seeking to prevent the town from future discrimination based on the Commission’s authority to seek ‘injunctive relief in the public interest,'” Reiber wrote.
Hartman said the commission will continue to pursue the claim against the town in the Washington County court.
John Klesch, an attorney representing the town of St. Johnsbury, said in a phone call that he had reviewed the decision and would continue to represent the town’s interests as it proceeds.
