Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)

Citation
Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)
Parent Document
Union River Associates v. Budman, 2004 ME 48 (2004)
Jurisdiction
Maine (state)
Effective Date
2004-04-08

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text

1,109 chars
[¶ 13] Here, the court erred by failing to consider Budmaris claim of religious discrimination to determine whether the presumption of retaliation had been established and, if so, whether Union River rebutted the presumption. This failure was, however, harmless because the trial evidence failed to establish a violation of either the Fair Housing Act or the Maine Human Rights Act by Union River or its agents. Although Budman’s answer asserted that Union River was responsible for an “ongoing lack of action that has created an escalating anti-Semitic atmosphere,” the only evidence presented in this regard was the apartment manager’s refusal to accede to Budmaris request regarding the publication of a notice and the manager’s refusal to take down Christmas decorations. There was no evidence offered as to why the manager refused these requests, nor was there evidence offered to establish that the manager’s refusal contributed to an escalating anti-Semitic atmosphere at the Riverview Apartments as claimed by Budman, apart from the antiSemitic atmosphere created by the two earlier acts of vandalism.