Antidiscrimination Law

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

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Fair Housing Act

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 …

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 Read More »

Photography business cannot discriminate against same-sex couples

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Religious Freedom

The Supreme Court of New Mexico has held that the state public accommodations law applies to a photography business that offers its services to the public. Because that law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the business could not lawfully refuse to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony because of the owner’s religious beliefs. Elane Photography v Willock, — P.3d — (N.M. 2013). The state public accommodations law does not violate the owner’s free speech rights since professions involving creativity or expression are not exempt from those laws. The court explained that “Elane Photography believes that because it is a photography business, it cannot be subject to public accommodation laws. The reality is that because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work. Nor did the owner’s religious beliefs offer a reason to engage in discriminatory conduct. “Under established law, the right of …

Photography business cannot discriminate against same-sex couples Read More »

NJ Supreme Court holds that Governor Christie lacked authority to abolish the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH)

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Zoning

In 2011, Governor Chris Christie purported to abolish the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), an agency set up by legislation and designed to implement the state’s Mount Laurel obligations; he planned to transfer its responsibilities to the Department of Community Affairs. The Supreme Court of New Jersey had held in the Mount Laurel litigation that towns were required to implement zoning laws in a manner that made room for all kinds of housing, including housing affordable by low and moderate-income families. S. Burlington County, NAACP v. Twp. of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel II), 456 A.2d 390 (N.J. 1983); S. Burlington County, NAACP v. Twp. of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel I), 336 A.2d 713 (N.J. 1975). When the legislature created an agency to manage those obligations, the court held that it constituted a legitimate institutional mechanism for complying with those constitutional obligations. Hills Dev. Co. v. Twp. of Bernards, 510 A.2d 621 (N.J. 1986). In In re Plan for Abolition of Council …

NJ Supreme Court holds that Governor Christie lacked authority to abolish the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) Read More »

Woman with muscular dystrophy may use Segway in Walt Disney World unless such use can be demonstrated to be unsafe

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Trespass

The Ninth Circuit held that the Americans with Disabilities Act grants a woman the right to use a Segway in Walt Disney World unless the park owners can show that its use is dangerous. Baughman v. Walt Disney World, Inc., 685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012). The court found that allowing Segway use might constitute a reasonable modification of the park’s policies that were “necessary” to allow her to enjoy the facilities on an equal basis with others. Such modifications are not required if they cannot be consistent with safety requirements.

HUD rule prohibits LGBT discrimination in mortgage lending and other programs it administers

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions, Sexual Orientation

In 2012, HUD adopt an Equal Access Rule that prohibits lenders from discriminating on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status in granting mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). 24 C.F.R.Parts 5, 200, 203, 236, 400, 570, 574, 882, 8991, 982 (77 Fed. Regis. 5662 (Feb. 3, 2012). The rule applies to all housing programs administered by the department. In January 2013, HUD entered a settlement with Bank of America over a claim that it refused to grant a mortgage to a lesbian couple. See article. It was promulgated under HUD’s general statutory authority to promote the “goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family,” 42 U.S.C. §1441.

Same-sex marriages resume in California

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

In 2008, by a 4-3 vote, the Supreme Court of California held that its state constitutional right to equal protection of the laws grants same-sex couples the same right to marry as is enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, using strict scrutiny to come to this conclusion. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.2d 384 (Cal. 2008). The court held that the right to marry is a basic civil right whose denial impinges upon same-sex couples’ fundamental privacy interests in having official family relationships accorded equal respect and dignity and that no compelling state interest justified the differential treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. It also ruled that existing statutory provisions recognizing civil union or domestic partnership arrangements for same-sex couples were not equivalent to laws recognizing opposite-sex civil marriages. The California decision was overturned on November 4, 2008, when California voters approved Proposition 8 amending the California Constitution to provide that “[o]nly marriage between …

Same-sex marriages resume in California Read More »

Section 3 of DOMA struck down

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Religious Freedom, Sexual Orientation

Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. §7, Pub. L. No. 104-199, §3, 110 Stat. 2419, passed in 1996, denied federal recognition to same-sex marriages. This meant, for example, that for such purposes as calculating federal income tax, same-sex couples were not recognized as married and entitled to the tax advantages (and disadvantages) of marriage even if they were validly married under state law. A same-sex couple validly married in Massachusetts under Massachusetts law would file state tax returns as a married couple but would then have to file federal tax returns as two unrelated individuals. However, Section 3 was struck down as an unconstitutional violation of the due process and equal protection clauses on June 26, 2013 in the case of United States v. Windsor,  — U.S. —, 2013 WL 3196928 (2013). Windsor found that marriages have traditionally been governed by state, rather than federal law, and held that no …

Section 3 of DOMA struck down Read More »

More states recognize same-sex marriage

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation, Wills and Inheritance

Within the last month or so, new states have recognized same-sex marriage. They are Delaware, Rhode Island, and Minnesota. All did so legislatively. Del. Code, tit. 13, §§101 to 122, as amended by 2013 Del. HB 75 (May 8, 2013); R.I. Gen. Laws §§15-1-1 to 15-1-5, as amended by 2013 R.I. Pub. Laws 4 (2013 R.I. HB 5015); Minn. Stat. §§517.01 to 517.09, as amended by 2013 Minn. Sess. Law Serv., ch. 74 (H.F. 1054) (May 14, 2013). Internationally, recent additions to the list include France, New Zealand, and Uruguay. As of May 17, 2013, there are now thirteen jurisdictions (12 states and the District of Columbia) that recognize same -sex marriage in the U.S. They include  Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Three American Indian nations also recognize same-sex marriage, including the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and …

More states recognize same-sex marriage Read More »

HUD issues final regulations defining disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Fair Housing Act, Real Estate Transactions

The Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) has issued final regulations defining the standards to make a claim that a neutral policy has a disparate impact on a protected group in a manner that constitutes unlawful discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. The regulations are at 24 C.F.R. 100.500 and can be found here. The rule affirms that disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act and identifies an approach to proving them to respond to the variation that exists among Circuits on what the legal test is for disparate impact in this area. Here is the test: 1. Plaintiff must show a discriminatory effect either because defendant’s policies or actions result in a disparate impact on a protected group or because those policies or actions promote segregation. 2. Defendant then has the burden to showthat  its practice is necessary to achieve …

HUD issues final regulations defining disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act Read More »

Vermont civil union counts as a marriage in Massachusetts

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Marital Property, Sexual Orientation

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held that a man who entered into a civil union with another man in Vermont could not marry a different man in Massachusetts before dissolving the civil union. Elia-Warnken v. Elia, 463 Mass. 29, 2012 Mass. LEXIS 678 (Mass. 2012). The court dismissed divorce proceedings in Massachusetts on the ground that the marriage was void from the beginning since one of the men was still “married” (under a “civil union”) to another man in Vermont. The result denied the “spouse” in Massachusetts any remedies such as equitable distribution of property on the ground that otherwise one person would be married to two people at once with conflicting support obligations. The court cited an article of mine, Joseph William Singer, Same–Sex Marriage, Full Faith and Credit, and the Evasion of Obligation, 1 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 1, 29, 36, 50 (2005). Presumably, an …

Vermont civil union counts as a marriage in Massachusetts Read More »

Scroll to Top