Loading
Construction
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Architecture, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Fair Housing, Building Code, Construction Management
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Third Circuit
The case of United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects illustrates how architectural design can become central to federal accessibility litigation. On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint alleging that fifteen senior housing facilities in four states, designed by J. Randolph Parry Architects, failed to comply with accessibility requirements under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint pointed to barriers such as entrances, door widths, and bathroom layouts that allegedly limited access for individuals with disabilities. The DOJ also named as defendants both the original and current property owners.
Parry attempted to defend against the claims by citing the five-year federal statute of limitations for civil penalties under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 and state statutes of repose in Pennsylvania (12 years) and New Jersey (10 years). The Court, however, treated the DOJ’s action as alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination, not isolated violations. Because at least one facility had been completed in 2020, the claim was timely under federal law. The Court also rejected the use of state statutes of repose, reasoning that they had not been applied to FHA or ADA enforcement and could not override federally created causes of action. By denying the architect’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court allowed the DOJ’s claims to proceed.
The U.S. Department of Justice formally filed its complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging widespread violations of FHA and ADA accessibility standards. The claims targeted fifteen senior housing facilities designed by J. Randolph Parry Architects, with both original and current owners named as defendants. The filing framed the case as a systemic enforcement action, seeking not only injunctive relief but also civil penalties and compensation for affected residents.
Parry responded by filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the DOJ’s claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462. The defense also invoked Pennsylvania’s twelve-year and New Jersey’s ten-year statutes of repose, which cut off liability for construction-related claims after a fixed period. This strategy aimed to significantly narrow the case by eliminating claims tied to older facilities.
The Court denied the motion, emphasizing that the DOJ had alleged a continuing pattern or practice of discrimination rather than isolated violations. Because one of the facilities was completed in 2020, the entire action remained within the statutory timeframe. The Court further concluded that applying state statutes of repose to federal accessibility enforcement would conflict with Congress’s intent, thereby leaving the DOJ’s claims intact. This ruling allowed the case to advance toward negotiated resolutions.
The Court entered a consent order resolving claims against Lifequest Nursing Center, owner of the Lifequest Assisted Living Center in Quakertown, Pennsylvania. Under the order, Lifequest agreed to complete accessibility retrofits, contribute $24,000 to a settlement fund for affected individuals, and pay a $14,000 civil penalty. The agreement also mandated FHA and ADA compliance training to prevent future violations.
The case against Parry reached resolution through a consent order requiring significant corrective measures. The architect was ordered to contribute $350,000 to a retrofit fund for accessibility improvements across the properties, pay $75,000 into a settlement fund for residents, and remit a $25,000 civil penalty to the government. The order also imposed additional obligations, including accessibility training and government oversight of future plan reviews.
Three current property owners, GAHC3 Bethlehem PA ILF, LLC, GAHC3 Palmyra PA ALF, LLC, and GAHC3 Boyertown PA ALF, LLC, entered into consent orders with the DOJ. Each entity agreed to complete retrofits at their respective facilities (Traditions of Hanover, Traditions of Hershey, and Chestnut Knoll) to address accessibility barriers. These agreements reinforced the DOJ’s focus on ensuring compliance through property-level corrective action.
The owner of Cedar Views Apartments in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resolved claims by agreeing to perform retrofits and pay $40,000 into a settlement fund. The order also included injunctive relief requiring accessibility training, further embedding compliance obligations into the property’s operations.
The former owner of the Birches of Newtown agreed to a consent order requiring accessibility retrofits and a $40,000 contribution to a settlement fund. As with earlier orders, the agreement included mandatory training on FHA and ADA standards to improve future compliance practices.
The former owner of the Birches of Harleysville entered into a consent order requiring retrofits and the payment of $40,000 into a settlement fund. The order also mandated compliance training, aligning with the broader enforcement strategy applied throughout the litigation.
The Court entered two consent orders resolving claims against One Boyertown Properties, L.P. and Westrum Hanover, L.P., former owners of Chestnut Knoll and Traditions of Hanover, respectively. Each entity was required to pay $15,000 into a settlement fund and comply with an injunction prohibiting future disability-based discrimination. These final orders marked the conclusion of the DOJ’s enforcement against former owners, closing out the property-level disputes.
In addition to monetary settlements, the DOJ secured consent orders with current owners to ensure access for completing retrofits. These included 1180 Ben Franklin Way LLC (Keystone Villa, Nov. 2021), Care HSL Newtown Propco LP (Birches at Newtown, Nov. 2022), and Care HSL Harleysville Propco LP (Birches at Harleysville, Nov. 2022). These agreements guaranteed that retrofit work could proceed without obstruction, ensuring effective enforcement of accessibility standards.
Court:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case Name:
United States of America v. J. Randolph Parry Architects, P.C., et al.
Architectural Design
Building Design
Building Code Compliance
Construction Building Codes
Wheelchair Access
The case of United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects illustrates how architectural design can become central to federal accessibility litigation. On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint alleging that fifteen senior housing facilities in four states, designed by J. Randolph Parry Architects, failed to comply with accessibility requirements under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint pointed to barriers such as entrances, door widths, and bathroom layouts that allegedly limited access for individuals with disabilities. The DOJ also named as defendants both the original and current property owners.
Parry attempted to defend against the claims by citing the five-year federal statute of limitations for civil penalties under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 and state statutes of repose in Pennsylvania (12 years) and New Jersey (10 years). The Court, however, treated the DOJ’s action as alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination, not isolated violations. Because at least one facility had been completed in 2020, the claim was timely under federal law. The Court also rejected the use of state statutes of repose, reasoning that they had not been applied to FHA or ADA enforcement and could not override federally created causes of action. By denying the architect’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court allowed the DOJ’s claims to proceed.
The U.S. Department of Justice formally filed its complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging widespread violations of FHA and ADA accessibility standards. The claims targeted fifteen senior housing facilities designed by J. Randolph Parry Architects, with both original and current owners named as defendants. The filing framed the case as a systemic enforcement action, seeking not only injunctive relief but also civil penalties and compensation for affected residents.
Parry responded by filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the DOJ’s claims were barred by the five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462. The defense also invoked Pennsylvania’s twelve-year and New Jersey’s ten-year statutes of repose, which cut off liability for construction-related claims after a fixed period. This strategy aimed to significantly narrow the case by eliminating claims tied to older facilities.
The Court denied the motion, emphasizing that the DOJ had alleged a continuing pattern or practice of discrimination rather than isolated violations. Because one of the facilities was completed in 2020, the entire action remained within the statutory timeframe. The Court further concluded that applying state statutes of repose to federal accessibility enforcement would conflict with Congress’s intent, thereby leaving the DOJ’s claims intact. This ruling allowed the case to advance toward negotiated resolutions.
The Court entered a consent order resolving claims against Lifequest Nursing Center, owner of the Lifequest Assisted Living Center in Quakertown, Pennsylvania. Under the order, Lifequest agreed to complete accessibility retrofits, contribute $24,000 to a settlement fund for affected individuals, and pay a $14,000 civil penalty. The agreement also mandated FHA and ADA compliance training to prevent future violations.
The case against Parry reached resolution through a consent order requiring significant corrective measures. The architect was ordered to contribute $350,000 to a retrofit fund for accessibility improvements across the properties, pay $75,000 into a settlement fund for residents, and remit a $25,000 civil penalty to the government. The order also imposed additional obligations, including accessibility training and government oversight of future plan reviews.
Three current property owners, GAHC3 Bethlehem PA ILF, LLC, GAHC3 Palmyra PA ALF, LLC, and GAHC3 Boyertown PA ALF, LLC, entered into consent orders with the DOJ. Each entity agreed to complete retrofits at their respective facilities (Traditions of Hanover, Traditions of Hershey, and Chestnut Knoll) to address accessibility barriers. These agreements reinforced the DOJ’s focus on ensuring compliance through property-level corrective action.
The owner of Cedar Views Apartments in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resolved claims by agreeing to perform retrofits and pay $40,000 into a settlement fund. The order also included injunctive relief requiring accessibility training, further embedding compliance obligations into the property’s operations.
The former owner of the Birches of Newtown agreed to a consent order requiring accessibility retrofits and a $40,000 contribution to a settlement fund. As with earlier orders, the agreement included mandatory training on FHA and ADA standards to improve future compliance practices.
The former owner of the Birches of Harleysville entered into a consent order requiring retrofits and the payment of $40,000 into a settlement fund. The order also mandated compliance training, aligning with the broader enforcement strategy applied throughout the litigation.
The Court entered two consent orders resolving claims against One Boyertown Properties, L.P. and Westrum Hanover, L.P., former owners of Chestnut Knoll and Traditions of Hanover, respectively. Each entity was required to pay $15,000 into a settlement fund and comply with an injunction prohibiting future disability-based discrimination. These final orders marked the conclusion of the DOJ’s enforcement against former owners, closing out the property-level disputes.
In addition to monetary settlements, the DOJ secured consent orders with current owners to ensure access for completing retrofits. These included 1180 Ben Franklin Way LLC (Keystone Villa, Nov. 2021), Care HSL Newtown Propco LP (Birches at Newtown, Nov. 2022), and Care HSL Harleysville Propco LP (Birches at Harleysville, Nov. 2022). These agreements guaranteed that retrofit work could proceed without obstruction, ensuring effective enforcement of accessibility standards.
Architecture and Accessibility Expert Witnesses
Architecture and accessibility experts evaluate whether senior housing facilities meet ADA and FHA standards. They analyze layouts, entrances, bathrooms, and other design features to determine compliance.
Building Code Compliance Expert Witnesses
These experts assess the interaction between state building codes and federal disability access laws, clarifying whether design and construction decisions align with architectural and regulatory requirements.
Civil Rights and Disability Policy Expert Witnesses
Civil rights and disability policy experts provide broader context on ADA and FHA enforcement. They explain how design shortcomings restrict equal housing opportunities for people with disabilities.
Construction Management Expert Witnesses
Construction management experts determine whether accessibility issues arose from architectural design flaws, construction practices, or both, helping to assign responsibility among stakeholders.
The case of United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects demonstrates the significant legal consequences of accessibility compliance in architectural design. By denying limitations and repose defenses and securing consent orders for widespread retrofits, the Court allowed the DOJ to enforce accessibility obligations comprehensively. The case underscores the ongoing risks architects face when accessibility is overlooked and highlights the DOJ’s commitment to systemic enforcement.
For architects, developers, and attorneys, the case reinforces the importance of integrating accessibility requirements into every stage of housing design and construction. It also shows how expert witnesses play a critical role in evaluating compliance, identifying barriers, and guiding litigation strategies.
Why was this case significant?
It confirmed that ADA and FHA design-and-construction claims can be treated as pattern-or-practice actions, allowing them to remain timely if at least one violation occurred within the statutory window.
Do statutes of repose protect architects in ADA and FHA lawsuits?
In this case, the Court declined to apply Pennsylvania’s and New Jersey’s statutes of repose, citing strong preemption concerns.
What role do expert witnesses play in accessibility litigation?
Expert witnesses analyze compliance with architectural standards, building codes, and accessibility laws, providing essential technical testimony.
Does this ruling apply only to senior living facilities?
No. The principles apply broadly to any housing subject to the FHA and facilities covered by the ADA.
What should attorneys keep in mind in accessibility litigation?
They should engage architectural and compliance experts early, understand how courts evaluate systemic violations, and anticipate arguments about the preemption of state defenses.
Architecture and Accessibility Expert Witnesses
Architecture and accessibility experts evaluate whether senior housing facilities meet ADA and FHA standards. They analyze layouts, entrances, bathrooms, and other design features to determine compliance.
Building Code Compliance Expert Witnesses
These experts assess the interaction between state building codes and federal disability access laws, clarifying whether design and construction decisions align with architectural and regulatory requirements.
Civil Rights and Disability Policy Expert Witnesses
Civil rights and disability policy experts provide broader context on ADA and FHA enforcement. They explain how design shortcomings restrict equal housing opportunities for people with disabilities.
Construction Management Expert Witnesses
Construction management experts determine whether accessibility issues arose from architectural design flaws, construction practices, or both, helping to assign responsibility among stakeholders.
The case of United States v. J. Randolph Parry Architects demonstrates the significant legal consequences of accessibility compliance in architectural design. By denying limitations and repose defenses and securing consent orders for widespread retrofits, the Court allowed the DOJ to enforce accessibility obligations comprehensively. The case underscores the ongoing risks architects face when accessibility is overlooked and highlights the DOJ’s commitment to systemic enforcement.
For architects, developers, and attorneys, the case reinforces the importance of integrating accessibility requirements into every stage of housing design and construction. It also shows how expert witnesses play a critical role in evaluating compliance, identifying barriers, and guiding litigation strategies.
Why was this case significant?
It confirmed that ADA and FHA design-and-construction claims can be treated as pattern-or-practice actions, allowing them to remain timely if at least one violation occurred within the statutory window.
Do statutes of repose protect architects in ADA and FHA lawsuits?
In this case, the Court declined to apply Pennsylvania’s and New Jersey’s statutes of repose, citing strong preemption concerns.
What role do expert witnesses play in accessibility litigation?
Expert witnesses analyze compliance with architectural standards, building codes, and accessibility laws, providing essential technical testimony.
Does this ruling apply only to senior living facilities?
No. The principles apply broadly to any housing subject to the FHA and facilities covered by the ADA.
What should attorneys keep in mind in accessibility litigation?
They should engage architectural and compliance experts early, understand how courts evaluate systemic violations, and anticipate arguments about the preemption of state defenses.
Architectural Design
Building Design
Building Code Compliance
Construction Building Codes
Wheelchair Access
Geotechnical Engineering, +4
Construction
Industrial Hygiene, +7
Construction