Dyan Hunt alleged that Aimco Properties threatened eviction and lease nonrenewal because of her son Karl’s disability and failed to accommodate his needs. The district court dismissed the Hunts’ Fair Housing Act claims. The Eleventh Circuit held that the complaint plausibly alleged that Aimco made the apartment unavailable, discriminated in the rental terms and conditions, and refused a reasonable accommodation. It rejected the view that no housing discrimination claim could proceed because the Hunts ultimately remained in the apartment after Aimco sold the complex. The court also held that Dyan adequately requested an accommodation by asking to remain in the apartment while she arranged off-site care for Karl. It reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings on the claims.