A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Denver’s affordable housing entity to follow its own procedures and allow a disabled woman to receive her housing assistance paperwork at the address where she accepts her mail, and not where the Denver Housing Authority believed she should accept it.

The lawsuit brought by Carroll Ann Latimore against DHA centered around a narrow issue: DHA’s insistence that recipients of housing subsidies receive their renewal paperwork at their residence and not, as Latimore does with her mail, at a Post Office box. But it took the intervention of U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney to confirm Latimore had a disability-based reason to join the dozens of other subsidy recipients who accept DHA’s mail in places other than their residence.

After Sweeney gave her oral ruling, DHA’s attorney physically handed Latimore the paperwork it had refused to send to her P.O. box. The judge expressed her displeasure with the belated gesture, coming after several weeks of litigation.

“DHA, this isn’t why this court is here. This strikes me as something that could have been taken care of easily several months ago,” Sweeney said sternly.

For Latimore, who represented herself in the case, the stakes were significant. She worried she would become homeless if DHA terminated her assistance through the housing voucher program. Also known as Section 8, the program is federally funded but administered through local agencies, including DHA.

Latimore testified she is a U.S. Army veteran and law school graduate who the U.S. Social Security Administration determined has been disabled since 2005. A Veterans Affairs medical professional documented how Latimore has service-related conditions that result in Latimore’s poor concentration and organizational skills, excessive worry and decreased ability to complete daily tasks.

Since 2007, Latimore has participated in the housing choice voucher program in multiple states without incident. That changed in October 2020, when she moved to Colorado to be near her son. Her difficulty with DHA boiled down to one thing: her mailbox.

“Tell me about what happens to you when you go get the mail. Tell me your emotional or physiological reaction,” Sweeney prompted her at Tuesday’s hearing.

“It would be intolerable,” Latimore responded. 

Latimore lives in an apartment building in Capitol Hill, but purchased a P.O. box where she receives her mail. She conceded it would be difficult for people without knowledge of mental illness to understand, but the prospect of receiving mail and multiple prescription medications in her building’s unsecured vestibule was reportedly a source of extreme anxiety.

“When you have these problems your first priority is to try as best you can to stay as sane as you can,” Latimore explained in court. “And that’s what it comes down to, being in control. Security is the main thing. I couldn’t articulate that, but that is it.”

Under DHA policy, however, notices and annual renewals for the housing choice voucher program are not sent to P.O. boxes. Loretta Owens, director of the 47-employee office, testified the rule is meant to ensure authorized persons only are living in a government-subsidized housing unit.

“Our mail does not forward to other addresses. So, if the mail is sent to the subsidized unit and is returned, that is an indication the resident may not be living at that address or at least is a cause for question,” Owens said, calling the rule “fraud protection.”

DHA’s rule provides an exception for those who need a reasonable accommodation due to their disability or “for good cause on a case by case basis.” Owens estimated approximately 50 voucher recipients out of a total of 8,030 receive mail from DHA at places other than their subsidized residence.

In her legal filings, Latimore described being able to maintain her housing voucher for 2021-2022 only after bringing another federal court case. She filed suit again in August, claiming DHA was trying to end her housing voucher because of her P.O. box. If that were the case, Latimore worried she would be unable to secure another voucher given the high demand for housing assistance, and would become homeless.

“The rule is unconstitutional. There is no rational reason for the government to tell anyone where to get mail,” she wrote to the court.

In late August, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix recommended against granting a temporary restraining order that would direct DHA to continue Latimore’s housing voucher effective Oct. 1. Mix noted there was “still over a month” for Latimore to secure housing, and homelessness was not “imminent.” Sweeney approved Mix’s recommendation on Sept. 8, while also scheduling a hearing to consider a preliminary injunction.

At the hearing, Gerritt Koser, an attorney for DHA, asked Latimore whether living in another apartment with more secure mailboxes would be an option for her.

“It was probably 30, 35 places I called before I tried to move here. And, seriously, almost all of them don’t take the voucher. So, that narrows my options when I’m looking for a place to live,” Latimore responded. “I think I found one other place that would have taken the voucher.”

DHA argued its policy against P.O. boxes does not violate federal or state law, and that “participant preference” is not enough to bend the rule. But Sweeney, after hearing testimony, took the unusual step of granting Latimore a preliminary injunction and ordering DHA to send mail to her P.O. box. Latimore, the judge explained, had clearly shown her range of conditions and disabilities necessitated relief.

“I find that, in her complaint, Ms. Latimore has articulated a disability discrimination claim and is entitled to this accommodation,” Sweeney said.

She added Latimore had also shown good cause under DHA’s rule to receive mail at her P.O. box, as Owens had admitted on the witness stand that granting P.O. box requests was not overly burdensome for DHA.

Sweeney asked if Latimore still wished to pursue her lawsuit against DHA given that the injunction had addressed her most immediate concern. Latimore indicated she wanted to continue to litigate her claims that DHA workers engaged in a conspiracy to violate her rights.

The judge urged the parties to talk about a settlement, and for DHA to pay for a private mediator, if possible.

“I can’t order that, but I would suggest that,” Sweeney said.

DHA has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which Sweeney said is a high priority for her to evaluate.

The case is Latimore v. Denver Housing Authority et al.