Supreme Court Affirms FHA Disparate Impact Claims

by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Contact

[co-author: David Stute]

Late last month, the Supreme Court handed down a significant decision affecting rights and obligations under the Fair Housing Act. The Court’s 5-4 decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. makes clear that “disparate impact” (unintentional discrimination) claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. While the decision’s full scope will be the subject of future federal court litigation, landlords, property managers, developers, lenders and others subject to the Fair Housing Act are well-advised to take affirmative steps to ensure that their policies and practices can withstand disparate impact claims of discrimination.

The Fair Housing Act and Theories of Liability

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act (FHA), makes it unlawful to refuse to sell or rent, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability, or to discriminate against any such person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), (b) and (f)(1)-(2). With respect to individuals with disabilities, the statute also requires that covered entities provide reasonable accommodations to afford such individuals equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling. Id. at (f)(3).

Historically, the FHA, like all federal anti-discrimination statutes, had been interpreted to prohibit “disparate treatment” discrimination, which required a showing that a protected individual had been the subject of an intentional act of discrimination. In the landmark 1971 employment discrimination case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., however, the Supreme Court held that a defendant can be liable for discrimination (under Title VII) without any evidence of such unlawful bias. (The Court subsequently extended its holding to other federal employment anti-discrimination statutes.) Under this “disparate impact” theory of liability, a defendant can be liable for discrimination, even in the absence of any intentional discrimination, so long as the plaintiff identifies a facially neutral policy or practice that has a disproportionate impact on a protected group (unless the defendant can justify the challenged policy as serving a legitimate business purpose, and the plaintiff cannot identify an alternative means of achieving the business purpose with a lower impact on the protected group).

The Inclusive Communities Case

In 2008, the Inclusive Communities Project, a nonprofit Texas group assisting low-income, predominantly African-American families in finding affordable housing in predominantly Caucasian, suburban neighborhoods, filed suit against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, alleging the Department’s administration of federal Low-Income Housing Credits for residential developers violated the FHA. Using a disparate impact theory of liability, Inclusive Communities pointed to statistical evidence that the Department awarded a disproportionately high number of tax credits to projects in predominately minority neighborhoods as compared to projects in predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods. Siding with the plaintiff, the district court held that Inclusive Communities had made a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA based on its prior decisions. At the same time, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on the merits, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, holding that the district court had wrongly placed the burden on the Department to prove that there were no less discriminatory alternatives to its challenged practices. The Department petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted that petition.

The Supreme Court Recognizes FHA Disparate Impact Claims

In a 5-4 majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. The Court found support for its holding in the statute’s text, interpreting “otherwise make unavailable” as a “catch-all” phrase that looks “to consequences, not intent.” According to the Court, the phrase is the functional equivalent of the “otherwise adversely affect” language found in Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (both of which the Supreme Court previously construed to permit disparate impact claims in the employment context).

The Court also based its decision on Congress’ 1988 amendments to the FHA. Noting that all nine circuits that had addressed the subject at the time of the amendments had endorsed disparate impact claims, the Court inferred that Congress was aware of, and, through its silence, implicitly ratified those decisions.

Finally, the Court invoked the FHA’s underlying purpose “to eradicate discriminatory practices within a sector of the Nation’s economy.” According to the Court, Congress passed the FHA in reaction to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the subsequent social unrest in the inner cities, and thereby adopting President Lyndon Johnson’s Kerner Commission recommendation to pass a statute against “both open and covert racial discrimination prevent[ing] black families from obtaining better housing and moving to integrated communities.” The Court thus recognized disparate impact liability as a crucial legal tool against bias that may “escape easy classification as disparate treatment.”

The Court Cautions Against Low Bar For Disparate Impact Claims

To guard against claims that are solely based on a showing of a statistical disparity, however, the Court took care to emphasize constitutional limits to disparate impact liability. Quoting its decision in Griggs, the Court interpreted the FHA not to be a tool to interfere with valid housing policies, but rather a safeguard against “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers.”

The Court held that, as with disparate impact employment claims, a plaintiff in an FHA disparate impact case must first establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination. To establish that prima facie case, a plaintiff cannot simply rely on a statistical disparity, but, rather, must “point to a defendant’s policy or policies causing that disparity.” As the Court explained, without this “robust causality requirement” at the prima facie stage, “disparate-impact liability might cause race to be used and considered in a pervasive way and would almost inexorably lead [covered] entities to use numerical quotas, and serious constitutional questions could then arise.” Correspondingly, the Court warned lower courts not to “interpret[] disparate-impact liability to be so expansive as to inject racial considerations into every housing decision.” Rather, employing “race-neutral means,” courts should “concentrate on the elimination of the offending practice that ‘arbitrar[ily] ... operate[s] invidiously to discriminate on the basis of rac[e].”

The Court also made clear that, if and when a plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of FHA disparate impact liability, the same “business necessity” defense available in employment disparate impact claims is also available in the FHA context. (In the context of FHA disparate impact claims against governmental entities, this is known as the “public interest” defense.) As the Court explained, “[a]n important and appropriate means of ensuring that disparate-impact liability is properly limited is to give housing authorities and private developers leeway to state and explain the valid interest served by their policies.” According to the Court, “[t]he FHA does not decree a particular vision of urban development; and it does not put housing authorities and private developers in a double bind of liability, subject to suit whether they choose to rejuvenate a city core or to promote new low-income housing in suburban communities.” Rather, “[e]ntrepreneurs must be given latitude to consider market factors,” and zoning officials must be able to account for conditions ranging from traffic patterns to historic architecture. The Court expressly recognized that “race may be considered in certain circumstances and in a proper fashion[,]” explaining that it “does not impugn housing authorities’ race-neutral efforts to encourage revitalization of communities that have long suffered the harsh consequences of segregated housing patterns.” Thus, “[w]hen setting their larger goals, housing authorities may choose to foster diversity and combat racial isolation with race-neutral tools, and mere awareness of race in attempting to solve the problems facing inner cities does not doom that endeavor at the outset.”

Finally, by affirming the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Court made clear that in FHA disparate impact cases, as in employment disparate impact cases, if and when a defendant presents evidence supporting a “business necessity” (or “public interest”) defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of an alternative policy or practice that has a less disparate impact and nonetheless serves the defendant’s needs.

Implications for Housing Developers and Other Covered Entities

On remand, Inclusive Communities Project will offer a first glimpse at the impact of the “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary” test in the FHA context. On the facts presented, it is unclear whether Inclusive Communities will be able to establish that the Department’s decisions to award housing development tax credits to benefit low-income neighborhoods, rather than wealthier communities, were the result of an “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary” policy.

The Court’s holding applies to all entities subject to the FHA, including developers, landlords, property managers, lenders, and any entity that provides “services or facilities in connection” with the sale or rental of dwellings. To guard against potential disparate impact claims, affirmative steps should be taken to review, and, if necessary, make changes to, existing policies and practices. In doing so, the demographic implications of policies and practices should be considered, and, to the extent there are statistical disparities, the legitimate business and mission-driven considerations behind the policies should be documented. The ability to identify the underlying “business necessity” or “public interest” will go a long way in undercutting a claim that a policy is “artificial, arbitrary and unnecessary.” And, finally, because plaintiffs will have to show that there is “an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the [entity’s] legitimate needs,” an entity subject to the FHA may wish to proactively engage in that analysis itself and modify its policies and practices if it determines that an alternative approach would serve its purposes and soften the statistically adverse impact on a protected group.

*We would like to thank summer associate David Stute for his contribution to this alert.

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.

© Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Contact
more
less

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.