A dispute over residential code enforcement escalated into a federal lawsuit after a local homeowner claimed that county officials failed to provide required accommodations for his disability during an ordinance compliance process. The complaint was filed by Seth Rusek in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 30, 2026, naming Cobb County, Georgia as the defendant.
According to court documents, the plaintiff alleges that in January 2026, Cobb County Code Enforcement issued notices citing violations at his property related to vehicles “without tags” and “storing items outside.” In response, Rusek disclosed his severe spinal impairment and mobility limitations and formally requested a “time-only accommodation”—additional time and a safe compliance schedule—to address the cited issues without risking further injury. He did not request any waiver of the ordinances themselves.
The filing outlines that on January 13, 2026, Code Enforcement Supervisor Yolisa Foston replied: “We do not make accommodations on the ordinance,” instead directing Rusek to pursue zoning or board processes. The county indicated it would only grant extensions if “effort is observed” or “progress” is seen at inspection. The plaintiff argues this approach effectively conditioned relief on physical activity he was unable to perform due to his disability.
Rusek reiterated his request on January 20, 2026, explaining that cleanup had begun and clarifying that conditions were not visible from the street. That same day, county officials responded by restating compliance expectations: all vehicles must display current tags if outside a garage and all items must be stored within an enclosed structure. They acknowledged pine straw or leaves were not violations but maintained their position regarding other cited issues.
By February 18, 2026, with some progress made but ongoing physical limitations documented—including scheduled MRI imaging—Rusek reported being able to spend only limited time at home due to work obligations and religious observance. Despite these constraints and medical advice to avoid exertion following injury during attempted compliance efforts in cold weather, the county informed him that citations would be issued if violations were not corrected by March 5.
The complaint details that after undertaking physically demanding tasks against medical advice—lifting and bending outdoors in winter conditions—Rusek developed new sciatic pain and radiculopathy affecting mobility and daily activities. Subsequent medical imaging from March 2026 showed worsening lumbar pathology compared to prior scans from April 2025. The plaintiff claims these injuries resulted directly from being forced to demonstrate physical progress without an accommodation process.
Rusek’s legal arguments center on alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and provisions of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). He asserts that public entities such as Cobb County are required by law to make reasonable modifications in policies or procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination based on disability unless such modifications would fundamentally alter services or programs. The complaint states: “Cobb County discriminated against Plaintiff by refusing to meaningfully evaluate Plaintiff’s time-only accommodation request and by conditioning relief on disability-impairing physical exertion.” It further claims intentional discrimination through deliberate indifference since county officials had actual knowledge of both his disability status and specific accommodation requests.
In addition to claims under ADA Title II, Rusek alleges violations of FHA requirements for reasonable accommodation in housing-related matters as well as unlawful interference or coercion under Section 3617 of the act. He provides context suggesting selective enforcement by noting that many similarly situated homes in his neighborhood keep exterior items visible for extended periods without comparable citation threats.
The plaintiff seeks several forms of relief from the court: a declaration that Cobb County’s actions violated federal law; preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting further enforcement until lawful ADA/FHA review occurs; compensatory damages for physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, interference with use of his home, past and future medical expenses—in an amount believed to exceed $2 million—as well as litigation costs and attorney’s fees where authorized.
Seth Rusek is representing himself in this matter according to contact information listed in court filings. Medical records referenced in support of injury claims include reports signed by Dr. Chintan Desai (March 7, 2026) and Dr. Doug Hornsby (April 13, 2025). The case is identified as Civil Action File No. 1:26-cv-01698-JPB.
Source: 126cv1698_Seth_Rusek_v_Cobb_County_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
