Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: disparate treatment

  • Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    This case involves the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant, the City of Springfield, prohibited Plaintiffs from operating a home for residents in recovery from drug or alcohol addiction. Defendant claimed their zoning ordinance prohibited the home from operating in an R-SF Zone because it is a “group home” under the City’s zoning code and there is another “group home” located within 1/4 mile. The City classified the home as a group home because the residents who occupy the home are in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. The City denied Plaintiffs’ request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA and ADA.

    Plaintiffs brought claims of failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under the ADA and the FHA.

    Plaintiffs have disclosed three experts in this matter. Stephen D. Villavaso was disclosed as an expert in professional and urban planning. Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent, who Plaintiffs wish to have testify as to the number of residential listings in the City of Springfield during a given timeframe. Finally, John Majer was disclosed to provide expert opinions concerning the operation of residential group homes for substance abuse treatment.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the proposed expert witnesses disclosed by Plaintiffs for the reason that their proposed testimony did not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 702.

    Urban Planning Expert Witness

    Stephen D. Villavaso, J.D., FAICP is a professional urban and regional planner and a land use/zoning attorney with over forty years of experience in city and regional planning, environmental regulations, land use law, public administration and zoning.

    Villavaso’s degrees include a Bachelor of Science in Economics and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of New Orleans, and a Juris Doctorate from Loyola University of New Orleans. He has served the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association, with thirty-five years of service to the APA — receiving both the Chapter’s Leadership and Distinguished Service Awards along the way. He is the Past-President of the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association.

    Get the full story on challenges to Stephen Villavaso’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent affiliated with Keller Williams Realty Elevate in Joplin, Missouri. Stevens has been practicing as a real estate professional since 2021 and is licensed by the Missouri Real Estate Commission.

    Discover more cases with Andrea Stevens as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    John M. Majer, Ph.D. is a full Professor of Psychology at Harry S. Truman College and a Consultant for the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, in Chicago, Illinois.

    Majer has extensive research experience in the field of clinical-community psychology, mostly involving persons with substance use disorders and sober living homes.

    Want to know more about the challenges John Majer has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant argued that the experts’ opinions are not based on reliable methodology, are not supported by sufficient facts or data, and are based upon theories that have not been tested.

    Stephen Villavaso is an expert in professional and urban planning, who offers opinions on municipal zoning practices, the City’s application of its ordinances, and the compatibility of the spacing requirements with accepted planning principles and DOJ/HUD guidance. Andrea Stevens is a licensed real estate professional, who analyzes residential housing market conditions in Springfield, including the availability of suitable properties during the relevant timeframe. Dr. John Majer is an expert in the operation of residential recovery housing, who provides insight into the therapeutic and operational requirements of recovery homes, as well as the practical implications of spacing requirements on their viability.

    This Court agreed that the arguments raised by Defendant’s motion go to credibility and the weight of the testimony which are subjects that may be raised during cross-examination.

    However, federal courts should limit their review to the materials that were presented to the local land use board while considering reasonable accommodation claims, except in circumstances where the board prevents applicants from presenting sufficient information. This general rule however, does not apply to disparate impact and disparate treatment discrimination claims.

    The Court found that the Plaintiffs were not prevented from providing the information they now seek to present. Plaintiffs were invited to resubmit their request to the proper individual, and asked to address several issues, which they chose to ignore when making their resubmission. Thus, the expert reports will be considered in the disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. The expert reports will, however, be excluded in the failure to accommodate claim.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses Stephen D. Villavaso, Andrea Stevens, and Dr. John Majer.

    Key Takeaway

    Plaintiffs’ experts may be relevant under Rule 702 and at this time, there is no basis to exclude them under Daubert. However, the Court excluded Plaintiffs’ expert testimony in the failure to accommodate claim because it was not presented to the City as part of Plaintiffs’ request for accommodation.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: New Beginning Sanctuary V. City Of Springfield, Missouri
    Docket Number: 6:23cv3336
    Court Name: United States District Court, Missouri Western
    Order Date: January 22, 2026

  • Family Medicine Expert Witness’ Testimony on Landlord’s Health Condition Excluded

    Family Medicine Expert Witness’ Testimony on Landlord’s Health Condition Excluded

    In this fair-housing action, Intervenor Beverly Boucher sought to rent an apartment from Defendants Madison Property, L.L.C. (Madison Property) and Andrew Brenner (together, Defendants). Defendants declined to rent to Boucher after she informed them that she wished to live in the apartment with an emotional support animal (ESA), a cat.

    In Count I, Plaintiff United States of America (Plaintiff) claims that Defendants refused to lease a unit to Boucher because of her disability, and in Count II, Plaintiff claims that Defendants refused to grant Boucher’s request for an accommodation to the apartment building’s no-pets policy. 

    Defendants retained a family medicine expert witness, Stuart W. Steichen, an osteopath, and Brenner’s brother-in-law, to opine on Brenner’s health condition. Plaintiff, however, filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert, Stuart Steichen, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

    Family Medicine Expert Witness

    Family Medicine Expert Witness

    Stuart W. Steichen specializes in family medicine. He has been practicing for over 20 years and is affiliated with Allina Health United Hospital. Steichen received his medical degree from the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine.

    Want to know more about the challenges Stuart W. Steichen has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.  

    Discussion by the Court

    Steichen’s Testimony

    During the litigation, Defendants submitted a letter on Steichen’s clinic letterhead stating that Andrew Brenner had been under his care for recurrent upper respiratory infections. The letter explained that Brenner’s immune system was significantly weakened, making him highly susceptible to infections. It also pointed out that Brenner required a clean environment, free from irritants, to avoid illness. Exposure to cat dander, in particular, was identified as an allergen that could trigger respiratory issues.

    Steichen testified that Brenner’s severe kidney disease contributed to his weakened immune system. However, he admitted that he had never discussed Brenner’s kidney condition with him or reviewed his medical records. Instead, Steichen learned about Brenner’s kidney health from Brenner’s sister, who is not a medical professional.

    Analysis

    The Court observed that Steichen’s testimony aimed to support the Defendants’ argument that denying Boucher’s accommodation request was justified because having a cat would harm Brenner’s health. However, Steichen first treated Brenner in late 2021, months after Brenner had already denied Boucher’s request in March 2021. Furthermore, Steichen’s knowledge of Brenner’s immune condition did not come from treating him. Instead, Steichen learned about Brenner’s condition through conversations with Brenner’s sister, who is not a physician. Steichen never reviewed Brenner’s medical records or discussed his kidney condition with him.

    Given these facts, the Court concluded that Steichen’s opinion would not help the jury and should be excluded from the trial.

    Held

    The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendants’ family medicine expert witness, Stuart W. Steichen.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court excluded the testimony of the Defendants’ expert Stuart Steichen because his opinions lacked a proper foundation and would not be helpful to the jury. Steichen’s testimony was meant to support the Defendants’ argument that allowing Boucher to live with her emotional support animal (ESA) would harm Brenner’s health due to his weakened immune system.

    Steichen claimed Brenner’s condition made him vulnerable to issues from cat dander. However, Steichen never treated Brenner for his kidney condition, the primary cause of his weakened immune system. He learned about Brenner’s health from Brenner’s sister, who is not a medical professional and did not review Brenner’s medical records. Steichen also started treating Brenner after the ESA request was denied. The Court found his testimony would not assist the jury and excluded it.

    Case Details:

    Case caption: United States v. Madison Prop., L.L.C.
    Docket Number: 0:22cv2831
    Court: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
    Dated: December 27, 2024