at 5-6 (providing an example where a landlord seeks to evict a mentally disabled tenant who has threatened other tenants with a baseball bat, and the suggested reasonable accommodation to the landlord’s “no threats” policy is an assurance by the tenant’s attorney that the tenant “will receive appropriate counseling and periodic medication monitoring so that he will no longer pose a direct threat during his tenancy”); Super, 2010 WL 3926887, at *6 (“Courts have accepted a second chance — that is, a tenant’s opportunity to remain in her dwelling notwithstanding the landlord’s disability-neutral justification for eviction — as an accommodation, provided that it is coupled with the tenant seeking assistance for her disability.”); Bridgewaters, 452 Mass. at 847, 850 n. 26, 898 N.E.2d 848 (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed that the IHA has offered no
holding under different federal housing laws than those involved here that tenants of hudowned property may sue hud for declaratory and injunctive relief under local and federal law regarding alleged failure properly to maintain property holding that tenants request for housing authority to depart from its policy of evicting tenants for engaging in a violent act and reinstate his tenancy constituted an accommodation under the fha holding that the plaintiff in an eviction proceeding by a private landlord in federally funded section 8 housing could assert claims for violations of the rehabilitation act and fha as affirmative defenses with regard to nopet policy holding that denial of request for accommodation of religion is a discrete act under morgan holding that federal common law applied to thirdparty beneficiary claim by tenants of section 8 housing because federal agency was a party to the action and outcome of the case directly affected financial obligations of the united states