Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)

Citation: Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Parent Document: Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 884 A.2d 1109 (2005)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2005-10-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1472683/douglas-v-kriegsfeld-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,138 chars

Three theories are available to establish discrimination under the Fair Housing Act: "disparate treatment" (when an action is facially discriminatory), "disparate impact" (when an action is neutral on its face but has a discriminatory effect), and failure to make a "reasonable accommodation."[37] Under the first two theories, a tenant must prove that she is disadvantaged in relation to others "because of" her handicap.[38] In disparate treatment cases, the landlord allegedly is motivated by a discriminatory purpose[39] and courts commonly evaluate the parties' respective positions by employing the familiar three-stage burden-shifting approach outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).[40] In disparate impact cases, however, where the landlord is held accountable for the differential effect of its actions on the tenant without regard to motive,[41] the courts resolve the dispute in fewer steps by weighing the tenant's showing of discriminatory impact against the landlord's justification for its conduct.[42]

Other Sections in This Document (533)

Full Text