Gadsons v. Royal/Concord Gardens (1998)

Citation: Gadsons v. Royal/Concord Gardens (1998)
Parent Document: Gadsons v. Royal/Concord Gardens (1998)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 1998-05-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10695147/gadsons-v-royalconcord-gardens/ ↗

Full Text

823 chars

2
          A “disparate treatment” case such as this one involves
allegations of differential treatment based upon a forbidden
characteristic, such as race, sex, or handicap. A “disparate
impact” case, on the other hand, involves a facially neutral
policy or practice which has the effect of discriminating against
a particular protected group. To prevail under the former
theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted
with discriminatory intent. Under a disparate impact theory,
however, the plaintiff need only introduce evidence of
discriminatory effect. See generally, Mountain Side Mobile
Estates, 56 F.3d at 1250-51; Huntington Branch, NAACP v . Town of
Huntington, 844 F.2d 926, 933-35 (2d Cir. 1988).
                                 6
(discussing this burden-shifting paradigm in the context of a

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text