A $2.5 Million Fair Housing Verdict: When a Condo Board Ignored a Resident's Health

By the Law Offices of Haytham Faraj — Civil Rights & Trial Advocacy. Case handled by Matthew Amarin, Managing Attorney, Chicago.

Expert summary: A federal jury awarded Prospect Heights, Illinois resident Chris Kraszynski $2.5 million after her condominium association violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to accommodate her disability and health needs tied to glyphosate herbicide exposure. For more than a decade, the association sprayed weed-killing chemicals near her home and ignored her requests to address the harm — while separately pursuing her over a carpeting bylaw. The verdict is a reminder that condo associations and HOAs are bound by federal fair-housing law, and that "we're just enforcing the rules" is not a defense to disability discrimination.

What the jury decided

A federal jury returned a $2.5 million verdict against the Rob Roy Country Club Village Condo Association in Chris Kraszynski's civil rights lawsuit. The claim was straightforward: the association failed to reasonably accommodate her disability and health needs under the Fair Housing Act, continuing to spray glyphosate-based herbicide near her unit despite her documented concerns.

The award compensates the health damages she suffered from the ongoing spraying. Notably — and we give clients the full picture, not the flattering version — the verdict does not order the association to stop spraying in the future. It holds the association financially accountable for the harm already done.

A decade-long dispute that should never have happened

The conflict began in 2009. Kraszynski asked permission to remove the carpeting in her unit, which she believed trapped chemical residue and worsened her health, and she backed the request with letters from her doctors. The association denied it.

The carpet stayed. But in 2010, the association sued her — arguing she had violated a bylaw requiring wall-to-wall carpeting. When she missed a court appearance (she said she was too ill to attend), a default judgment was entered, and she ultimately accrued nearly $600,000 in fines, fees, and interest. The association even filed foreclosure documents against her home.

In other words: a resident raised a legitimate health concern, and the institution meant to serve her spent years trying to penalize her for it. That is exactly the kind of imbalance our Chicago trial team was built to correct.

Does the Fair Housing Act really apply to a condo association?

Yes. This is the legal point every homeowner should understand.

The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) prohibits housing discrimination based on disability — and it applies to condominium associations and homeowners associations, not just landlords. Under the law, a housing provider must make reasonable accommodations in its rules, policies, and practices when an accommodation is necessary to give a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home.

A rigid bylaw — like a blanket wall-to-wall carpeting requirement — does not override that duty. When a resident with a qualifying disability makes a reasonable request supported by medical documentation, an association generally cannot simply refuse and enforce the rule anyway. Doing so can itself be a fair-housing violation.

What to do if your HOA or condo board denies a disability accommodation

If you're facing something similar, the record you build matters as much as the request itself:

1. Put the request in writing. State the accommodation you need and that it relates to a disability or health condition.
2. Support it with medical documentation. Letters from treating physicians carry real weight, as they did here.
3. Keep every response. Denials, delays, and retaliatory actions (fines, lawsuits, foreclosure threats) can strengthen a fair-housing claim.
4. Don't ignore association lawsuits. A missed hearing turned into a six-figure judgment in this case. Deadlines are unforgiving.
5. Talk to a civil rights attorney early. The sooner counsel is involved, the more options you preserve.

Why this verdict matters beyond one condo

Environmental sensitivities and chemical-exposure disabilities are still widely misunderstood — and residents who raise them are too often dismissed as difficult rather than disabled. This result signals that federal law protects them, and that associations who ignore reasonable accommodation requests can face substantial liability. It's consistent with how this firm approaches every matter: prepared for trial from day one, and unwilling to accept a quiet, undervalued resolution when a client has been wronged. You can see more of that track record on our verdicts and settlements page.

Frequently asked questions

Can you sue a condo association or HOA under the Fair Housing Act? Yes. Condo and homeowners associations are housing providers subject to the Fair Housing Act's ban on disability discrimination and its reasonable-accommodation requirements.

What counts as a "reasonable accommodation"? A change to a rule, policy, or practice that a person with a disability needs to have equal use and enjoyment of their home — for example, modifying a carpeting requirement for someone with a documented sensitivity to herbicide exposure.

Does this verdict force the association to stop spraying herbicide? No. The $2.5 million verdict compensates past health damages; it does not, by itself, prohibit future spraying. That limitation is part of the honest picture of the outcome.

Is there a deadline to bring a Fair Housing Act claim? Yes — fair-housing claims carry strict filing deadlines that vary by the type of claim and forum. Speak with an attorney promptly to protect your rights.

Talk to our team

If a condo association, HOA, or landlord has ignored a legitimate disability or health accommodation, our civil rights trial lawyers can help you understand your options. Contact us for a free, confidential consultation. Consultations are available in English and Arabic.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its own facts. This article is for general information and is not legal advice.