Antidiscrimination Law

Municipal attempt to induce residents to move because of race violates Fair Housing Act even if they do not move

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Fair Housing Act

The Sixth Circuit has held that §3617 of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq., prohibits conduct intended to encourage residents to move even if they are not denied housing or induced to move. Hidden Village, LLC v. City of Lakewood, 2013 WL 5811642 (6th Cir. 2013). The basic provisions of the FHA (embodied in §3604) prohibit denying housing for discriminatory reasons, providing unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions for housing, and expressing an invidious preference for buyers or renters of a particular race, sex, etc. Section 3617 prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats, or any interference with any person’s right to exercise the fair housing rights protected by 3604. Federal courts have been confused and divided over whether §3617 provides a remedy when there is no underlying §3604 violation. In Hidden Village, municipal officials were unhappy with a religious youth service that helps young people released from foster care or juvenile detention enter …

Municipal attempt to induce residents to move because of race violates Fair Housing Act even if they do not move Read More »

Settlement of Mount Holly case prevents Supreme Court from addressing disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Fair Housing Act

The Supreme Court has twice in recent years accepted certiorari in cases to decide whether disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act. Both cases settled before the Supreme Court could determine the issue. The most recent was Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. v. Twp. of Mt. Holly, 658 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2011). The prior case was Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010). Another lawsuit is in process called Am. Ins. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev. (D.D.C., filed 06.26.13),  brought by the insurance industry to challenge the disparate impact regulations promulgated this year by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). read article Those regulations define when disparate impact claims are available and are consistent with the general outlines of the doctrine as it been developed by all the Circuit courts.  24 C.F.R. § 100.500(a)–(b).

Hawai`i, Illinois & New Jersey join the states that allow and recognize same-sex marriage

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

After passage of same-sex marriage laws in both HawaiiandIll∈oisandconstitutionallitigation∈NewJersey,seventeen(17)jurisdictions∈theUSrecognizeandallowsame−sexmarria≥.Thelist∈cludes:California,Co∩ecticut,Delaware,DistrictofColumbia,Hawai�and���∈���and������������������������∈���������,���������(17)�������������∈�ℎ������������and���������-���������≥.�ℎ�����∈������:���ifor���,��∩�������,��������,������������������,�����i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington.

Testers have standing to sue for violations of the public accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection

In Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, 2013 WL 5859575 (11th Cir. 2013), the Eleventh Circuit ruled that testers have standing to bring suits claiming violation of the public accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The mere fact that one enters property for the purpose of testing compliance with the ADA rather than to purchase products does not deprive the plaintiff of standing to sue for violation of the law. In an odd coda, however, the court noted that injunctive relief was only appropriate if the plaintiff could show injury from the store’s failure to comply with access requirements. The fact that he claimed he would return to the store in the future and that it was located 30 miles from his house was sufficient to show “injury in fact” and give him standing to seek injunctive relief.

Illinois is likely to become the 15th state to allow same-sex marriage

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

The Illinois House has passed a marriage equality bill that is virtually certain to become law in some form in the near future given the support in the Senate and by the Governor. Once that happens, 15 states will have same-sex marriage along with the District of Columbia. The outcome is more uncertain in Hawai`i but the legislature may vote in favor of a same-sex marriage bill in the next days.

First Circuit holds there is no federal remedy for discriminatory treatment by store personnel

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Personal Property

Once again a federal court has held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (as amended in 1991) provides no relief to a store customer who was subjected to racial insults while trying to buy merchandise. The First Circuit held, in Hammond v. Kmart Corp., 2013 WL 5763267 (1st Cir. 2013), that the “right to contract” protected by 42 U.S.C. §1981 only protects the ability to enter a contract; it provides no relief for racially disparate treatment when one is in a store. Because the customer was able to complete the transaction (laying away merchandise), the store did not prevent her from “contracting.” Being subjected to “racial slurs and insults” as she was engaged in the transaction did not deter her from completing the transaction. The ruling oddly protects those who are deterred from completing the sale but not those who insist on going through with it despite the discriminatory treatment. It …

First Circuit holds there is no federal remedy for discriminatory treatment by store personnel Read More »

Same-sex marriage prevails in New Jersey

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

Given the clear statement by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on how it was likely to rule in the pending marriage equality case, (see Garden State Equality v. Dow (N.J. 2013). Governor Chris Christie decided to drop the appeal. read article. That leaves the lower court ruling (read opinion here) in place with its conclusion that civil unions are not equal to marriages now that the federal government provides same-sex married couples the same federal rights as male-female married couples but does not confer such rights on partners to a civil union. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2005), had found it to be a violation of the state constitution not to grant same-sex couples the same rights as married couples but left it to the legislature whether to call the resulting unions “marriages” or “civil unions” or something else. While New Jersey conferred equal rights …

Same-sex marriage prevails in New Jersey Read More »

Same sex marriage to begin in New Jersey

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

The Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously upheld the decision of a trial judge to allow same-sex marriage to proceed pending appeal of the trial judge’s ruling that the New Jersey civil union law violates equal protection by denying same-sex couples the same rights as granted to married couples under federal law. Garden State Equality v. Dow, (N.J. 2013). The court had previously held that same-sex couples were entitled under the state constitution to the same rights and privileges as married male-female couples but allowed the legislature to determine whether to accomplish this end by extending marriage rights to same-sex couples or adopting a civil union law. Because the legislature adopted a civil union law, such couples had the same rights under state law as did male-female couples; they had different rights under federal law but that was because federal law refused to recognize any same-sex couples as married for any federal …

Same sex marriage to begin in New Jersey Read More »

Patron can sue for ADA violations by a diner even if he never went there

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Trespass

A patron who knew he could not enter a diner because the diner did not have wheelchair access could sue the diner and its landlord for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act even though he never went to the diner and tried to get in. Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 2013 WL 5340465 (2d Cir. 2013). The mere fact that he was deterred from going to the diner is enough to give him standing to bring a claim for violating the public accommodation provisions of the ADA. Moreover, once he had standing to sue for one violation, he could sue the diner for other violations of the statute that relate to his particular disability even if he has never been inside.

Scroll to Top