Trade Groups File Amicus Brief In Disparate Impact Case


On September 3, industry trade groups filed amici curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of petitioners in the case of Township of Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, No. 11-1507. The briefs argue, among other things,  that (i) neither the legislative history of the Fair Housing Act nor the text of Section 804(a) demonstrate any congressional intent to authorize claims based on a disparate impact theory of liability, (ii) an agency cannot create a right of action absent a clearly expressed intent for one, (iii) Congress did not intend to create a disparate-impact cause of action against lenders under Section 805, noting that, like Section 804, it contains no language about the “affect” or “effects” of facially neutral conduct, and that the Supreme Court has “long held” the “’normal definition of discrimination’” to be differential treatment not differential impact.

Topics:  Discrimination, Disparate Impact, Fair Housing Act, Mount Holly v Mt. Holly Citizens in Action, SCOTUS

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Civil Rights Updates, Residential Real Estate Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BuckleySandler LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »