You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

Search

City ordinance intended to exclude a group home can constitute intentional discrimination even if there is no evidence of an impact on the group home

October 2nd, 2013 by Joseph William Singer

The Ninth Circuit affirmed that an action intended to discriminate in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) creates a claim for which relief can be granted even if it has not had any other impact on the plaintiff. Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 2013 WL 5289100 (9th Cir. 2013). In this case, a city passed an ordinance intended to exclude group homes for recovering alcohol and drug users; it had terms that had the practical effect of prohibiting group homes from opening in most residential areas. The court held that a claim could be brought even if the plaintiff could not prove that the ordinance actually prevented it from acquiring property and operating. The ruling tracks prior case law which allow a damages claim for a prospective tenant denied housing because of her race even if she finds an apartment across the street five minutes later that is cheaper and better. Zoning practices that discriminate against individuals with disabilities can be discriminatory and violate the FHA if they contribute to making unavailable or denying housing to those persons.

Posted in Antidiscrimination law, Fair Housing Act | Comments Off on City ordinance intended to exclude a group home can constitute intentional discrimination even if there is no evidence of an impact on the group home

Comments are closed.