Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)

Citation: Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)
Parent Document: Southwest Fair Housing Council v. Mdwid, 17 F.4th 950 (2021)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2021-11-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5296996/southwest-fair-housing-council-v-mdwid/ ↗

Full Text

2,027 chars

Under a disparate-impact theory, the FHA “forbids
actions by private or governmental bodies that create a
discriminatory effect upon a protected class or perpetuate
housing segregation without any concomitant legitimate
reason.” Ave. 6E Invs., LLC v. City of Yuma, 818 F.3d 493,
503 (9th Cir. 2016). Disparate-impact theory serves two
    4
       Notably, Appellants appeared in the district court to ground their
claims in FHA § 804(b), not FHA § 804(a). The district court sua sponte
observed that, of these two provisions, the Supreme Court in Inclusive
Communities examined only FHA § 804(a), which makes it unlawful
“[t]o refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to
refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable
or deny, a dwelling to any person” because of their membership in a
protected class. The Court held that § 804(a) does permit disparate-
impact claims. The Court did not address whether disparate-impact
claims were also permitted under § 804(b). The district court noted the
language of § 804(b) differs significantly from § 804(a)—indeed
§ 804(b) does not contain the phrase “otherwise make unavailable,”
which was “of central importance” to the Supreme Court’s analysis.
Inclusive Communities, 576 U.S. at 534. The district court suggested
that the Supreme Court’s reasoning may not extend to permit disparate-
impact claims brought pursuant to § 804(b). The district court raises an
important issue. However, our circuit has already held that disparate-
impact claims are permitted under § 804(b). See Ojo v. Farmers Grp.,
Inc., 600 F.3d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010). Inclusive Communities did
not expressly upset this holding and neither party has argued, either in
the district court or on appeal, that we should revisit that holding in light
of Inclusive Communities. As such, we assume without deciding that
Ojo survives Inclusive Communities and that FHA § 804(b) permits
disparate-impact claims.
    SW. FAIR HOUSING V. MARICOPA DOMESTIC WATER 15

Other Sections in This Document (145)

Full Text