The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has largely upheld a ruling against the Reading Housing Authority (RHA) concerning its failure to promptly provide an accessible parking space to a tenant with significant mobility issues, Dorisel M. Serrano Rodriguez. The Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission’s (PHRC) finding that RHA violated the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (Act) by denying a reasonable accommodation. However, the $20,000 compensatory damage award drew a sharp rebuke from a dissenting judge, who argued the award was based on insufficient evidence and inappropriately awarded by an administrative body.
The decision, filed on December 11, 2025, confirmed that RHA must cease denying reasonable parking accommodations and mandated fair housing training for its staff.
The Core Dispute: Parking as a Necessary Accommodation
The case centered on Complainant Dorisel M. Serrano Rodriguez, a tenant at Eisenhower Apartments, a property managed by RHA catering to elderly and disabled residents. Ms. Rodriguez suffers from severe spinal and joint conditions, including six ruptured discs and fibromyalgia, which severely limit her ability to walk long distances.
When Ms. Rodriguez and her husband moved in in August 2018, they immediately requested an accessible parking spot and were placed on the waiting list. Despite having only three accessible spots for 156 units, RHA maintained a first-come, first-serve waiting list for both accessible and general spots.
The dispute escalated when Ms. Rodriguez formally requested the accommodation in January 2021, supported by a doctor’s note confirming her mobility limitations. RHA initially denied the request in February 2021, stating parking was an “amenity and not a guarantee” and not an “essential service.” After an internal appeal, RHA confirmed she remained on the waitlist, explaining that providing her an immediate spot would require displacing another elderly or disabled resident, which RHA refused to do.
The PHRC found that RHA’s delay—nearly five years from the initial request until an accessible spot was assigned in May 2023—amounted to a denial of accommodation. Crucially, the Commission noted that during the waiting period, six tenants without handicap designations received general parking spaces before Ms. Rodriguez secured her accessible spot.
The Commonwealth Court, in its majority opinion penned by Judge Patricia A. McCullough, agreed with the PHRC. The court found a “clear nexus” between Ms. Rodriguez’s disability and the need for closer parking. Citing federal precedent under the Fair Housing Act, the court established that once the tenant shows the accommodation is “necessary,” the burden shifts to the housing provider to prove it is “unreasonable.” The court held that RHA failed to meet this burden, especially given that non-disabled residents were accommodated ahead of her.
Statute of Limitations Argument Rejected
RHA initially argued that Ms. Rodriguez’s complaint, filed in June 2021, was time-barred under the Act’s 180-day statute of limitations. RHA claimed that the discrimination was isolated to a specific date in December 2020.
The Court dismissed this defense, noting that Ms. Rodriguez checked a box indicating the discrimination was “Continuing.” The Court interpreted the claim as challenging an ongoing practice, with the last actionable event being RHA’s final denial letter in May 2021, which was well within the 180-day window.
The $20,000 Damage Award: A Judicial Divide
While the majority affirmed the finding of discrimination, the award of $20,000 for humiliation and embarrassment proved highly contentious.
The majority emphasized that the Act grants broad remedial powers to the PHRC. They accepted Ms. Rodriguez’s testimony that the prolonged lack of accessible parking exacerbated her physical pain and caused her anxiety, depression, and stress over five years. Under the Act, the Court noted, a complainant’s own testimony regarding humiliation and embarrassment can sufficiently support an award, and the Court must give great deference to the Commission’s fact-based remedy determination.
The Dissent: Damages Are a Judicial Function
Senior Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt issued a powerful dissent focused entirely on the propriety of the $20,000 award. Judge Leavitt argued that awarding “actual damages,” which include common law concepts like humiliation and emotional distress, is fundamentally a judicial function, not one that can be delegated to an administrative agency like the PHRC.
Citing prior Pennsylvania case law, including the 1973 *Zamantakis* ruling, the dissent asserted that unless the legislature clearly authorizes an agency to award damages, such authority cannot be assumed. Judge Leavitt claimed the statutory language in Section 9(f)(1) lacked the necessary guiding standards, potentially violating the state’s non-delegation doctrine.
Furthermore, the dissent found Ms. Rodriguez’s testimony regarding her distress—which included stating she felt “anxiety, depression, stress”—to be too “terse” and “conclusory.” Comparing it to cases where larger awards were granted following explicit testimony of racial slurs or psychiatric hospitalization, Judge Leavitt argued that Ms. Rodriguez’s generalized statements were insufficient to support a $20,000 award under existing legal standards. The dissent also pointed out the irony that the required accommodation (an assigned spot) meant Ms. Rodriguez would now have to walk slightly further than the drop-off point where her husband used to leave her.
Despite the strong dissent regarding damages, the Court’s official order affirmed the Commission’s entire ruling, including the monetary penalty.