Feds challenge Pennsylvania requirement for sprinklers

[TheCommish]

Feds file court action against Pennsylvania saying requirements for sprinklers in community homes is discrimatory

 

[jar546]

Summary of the Lawsuit: United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania​

The U.S. government has filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its agencies, the Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) and the Department of Human Services (DHS). This legal action alleges that Pennsylvania's statewide building code discriminates against individuals with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

---

Key Issues in the Lawsuit:​

1. Discrimination in Housing Access:
   
   • The Uniform Construction Code (UCC) requires "community homes" for individuals with intellectual disabilities or autism to install automatic sprinkler systems.
   • These requirements do not apply to similarly sized homes occupied by individuals without disabilities.
   • The U.S. government claims this disproportionately restricts housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities, making it harder for them to live in integrated, community-based housing.
2. Definition and Role of Community Homes:
   
   • Community homes provide residential care and support for individuals with intellectual disabilities or autism, enabling them to live outside institutions.
   • These homes are regulated under strict safety requirements, including fire drills, smoke detectors, and evacuation protocols.
   • However, unlike other homes, community homes must meet additional, costly building code requirements such as sprinkler installation, even if their residents do not require such measures.
3. Cost and Feasibility of Compliance:
   
   • Installing automatic sprinklers can cost $9,500 to over $30,000 per home, depending on water utility requirements. These costs are often prohibitive for providers of community homes.
   • Retrofitting older homes or apartments to comply with sprinkler and other heightened fire safety requirements is frequently infeasible, leading to delays in opening homes or leaving them unoccupied.
4. Unequal Treatment Under the Code:
   
   • Comparable facilities, such as daycares or nursing homes, often have exemptions from sprinkler requirements.
   • Even newly constructed single-family homes in Pennsylvania are not required to install sprinklers, creating further inequity.
5. Legal Framework:
   
   • The lawsuit asserts that the Pennsylvania UCC violates the FHA by:
     • Making housing unavailable due to disability-based requirements.
     • Imposing unequal conditions on housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
     • Failing to provide reasonable accommodations when requested.
   • The United States seeks to invalidate the discriminatory requirements and ensure equal housing opportunities.

---

Broader Implications for Building Code Enforcement:​

1. Balancing Safety and Accessibility:
   
   • The case highlights the tension between enforcing fire safety standards and ensuring equal housing opportunities for marginalized populations.
   • Building codes, while essential for safety, must not disproportionately impact specific groups without a justified need.
2. Potential Reforms to Building Codes:
   
   • A ruling in favor of the U.S. could lead to changes in how community homes are classified and regulated, potentially reducing the financial burden on providers.
   • The case may also set a precedent for how jurisdictions nationwide balance safety requirements with anti-discrimination laws.
3. Responsibility of Local Code Officials:
   
   • Local governments enforcing the UCC were instrumental in denying occupancy permits without compliance with the sprinkler requirement.
   • Code officials need to assess whether current practices align with both building code standards and federal civil rights laws.

---

Educational Takeaways for TBCF Members:​

1. Understand Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws:
   
   • Building codes must be applied equitably and avoid creating barriers for protected groups under laws like the FHA.
2. Reasonable Accommodations:
   
   • Code officials should familiarize themselves with the process of granting accommodations or variances for disabled individuals or organizations serving them.
3. Impact of Regulations on Community Housing:
   
   • Members should consider the economic and operational impact of heightened safety requirements, particularly in older housing stock.
4. Potential for Code Updates:
   
   • The lawsuit could drive future updates to model codes like the International Building Code (IBC) to ensure more equitable treatment of community-based housing.

---

This case provides a compelling example of how building codes intersect with civil rights and public policy. It reminds all professionals in the industry to evaluate whether local enforcement practices align with both legal obligations and the broader goal of ensuring safe, inclusive communities.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This looks like a slam dunk for the federal government.

The real lesson isn't for code officials, however, so much as it is for the legislators and bureaucrats who take it upon themselves to tinker with the national model codes when they adopt them for a particular jurisdiction.

 

[jar546]

This looks like a slam dunk for the federal government.

It could be unless PA L&I provides solid, evidence backed data showing an increased fire risk in those types of homes.

 

[mtlogcabin]

8 or fewer residents the IRC is applicable and sprinklers are exempt under Montana law for one and two family dwellings.

The big questions should be are the residents capable of self preservation especially when the notification system is activated.
Autistic individuals do not react well to sudden loud noises

 

[tmurray]

It could be unless PA L&I provides solid, evidence backed data showing an increased fire risk in those types of homes.

I think the counter argument I would bring to this would be that people with cognitive impairments can also be in regular homes. If this is such a significant risk increase, then it should apply to all housing that this group can be in, not just "community homes".

Either way, it will be interesting to see how this case develops.