U.S. Supreme Court Decides Fair Housing Act Allows Disparate-Impact Claims

by Carlton Fields
Contact


On June 25th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., et al., holding that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (“ICP”), a Texas-based non-profit corporation that assists low-income families with obtaining affordable housing, brought a disparate-impact claim under the FHA against the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the “Department”), concerning certain federally funded low-income housing tax credits distributed by the Department to developers based on certain selection criteria.

The ICP alleged that the Department and its officers allocated too many tax credits to housing in predominantly black inner-city areas – and too few tax credits in predominantly white suburban neighborhoods – thereby perpetuating segregated housing patterns in Texas. The ICP alleged that the Department must “modify its selection criteria in order to encourage the construction of low-income housing in suburban communities.” The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas determined that the ICP had demonstrated a prima facie case of disparate impact and, after assuming that the Department’s proffered interests were legitimate, held that the Department “must prove ‘that there are no other less discriminatory alternatives to advancing their proffered interests.’” The District Court ultimately ruled in favor of the ICP, finding that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the FHA but reversed, concluding that the District Court applied the wrong burden-shifting analysis.

During the pendency of the Department’s appeal, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued a regulation interpreting the FHA to encompass disparate-impact liability; and establishing a burden-shifting framework for adjudicating such claims (i.e., plaintiff “has the burden of proving that a challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect” and, once a prima facie showing of disparate impact has been made, the burden shifts to the defendant to “prov[e] that the challenged practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interests.” If the defendant satisfies its burden, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the “substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests supporting the challenged practice could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.”).

In its analysis, the Supreme Court considered instructive two of its earlier decisions addressing the viability of disparate-impact claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), both of which the Court concluded authorized disparate-impact claims. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Smith v. City of Jackson, the Court interpreted the language of Title VII and the ADEA, respectively, and determined that anti-discrimination laws such as these statutes “must be construed to encompass disparate-impact claims when their text refers to the consequences of actions [(i.e.,disparate impact)] and not just to the mindset of [the] actors [(i.e., disparate treatment)], and where that interpretation is consistent with statutory purpose.” The Court found that the “otherwise adversely affect” language in both Title VII and the ADEA focuses on the effects or consequences of the action, rather than on the intent or motivation behind the action and “therefore compels recognition of disparate impact liability.” Turning to the FHA, the Court determined that the “otherwise make unavailable” language in the statute was equivalent in function and purpose to the “otherwise adversely affect” language in Title VII and the ADEA, and noted that Congress passed the FHA in 1968 – only four years after the passage of Title VII and only four months after the ADEA was enacted.

The Court also considered significant the 1988 amendments to the FHA, wherein Congress amended the statute to create certain exemptions from liability and to include “familial status” as a further protected characteristic – amendments which the Court explained would be superfluous if Congress had assumed that only disparate treatment claims were cognizable – yet did not amend the “otherwise make unavailable” language in the statute even though by that time, all nine Court of Appeals to have addressed the issue had uniformly concluded that the FHA encompassed disparate-impact claims. The Court found this to be a convincing and crucial indication of Congress’ acceptance and ratification that disparate-impact claims were indeed cognizable under the statute.

Although the Court held that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the FHA, it warned that “a disparate-impact claim that relies on a statistical disparity must fail if the plaintiff cannot point to a defendant’s policy or policies causing that disparity,” and that where a plaintiff fails to allege factual allegations at the pleading stage or produce statistical evidence demonstrating the required causal nexus, the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact thus warranting dismissal. The Court noted that defendants should be allowed leeway to “state and explain the valid interest served by their policies” – an analysis similar to the business necessity standard under Title VII – which would provide a defense against disparate-impact liability. That is, “an entity ‘could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the [challenged practices] were not job related and consistent with business necessity.’” The Court further cautioned that “[c]ourts should avoid interpreting disparate-impact liability to be so expansive as to inject racial considerations into every housing decision,” and that when such liability is found to exist, courts should fashion their remedial orders to ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution and that they “concentrate on the elimination of the offending practice that ‘arbitrar[ily] . . . operate[s] invidiously to discriminate on the basis of rac[e].’” The Court explained that if additional remedial measures are adopted, courts should aim to fashion such measures to eliminate racial disparities through race-neutral means.

Justice Thomas dissented, opining that disparate-impact liability is “a rule without a reason, or at least without a legitimate one.” Justice Alito in his dissent predicted that this decision “will have unfortunate consequences for local, government, private enterprise, and those living in poverty.”

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.

© Carlton Fields | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Carlton Fields
Contact
more
less

Carlton Fields 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.