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

1,578 chars

Importantly, the adverse effect here is not some broad
social condition. Cf. Inclusive Communities, 576 U.S.
at 526–27, 543 (signaling that plaintiffs on remand may find
it “difficult to establish causation because of the multiple
factors that go into investment decisions about where to
construct or renovate housing units”). Appellants are not
complaining that the Security Deposit Policy contributed to
an overrepresentation of protected-group members in public
housing. Rather, Appellants complain that the District’s
tying security deposit prices to public housing status directly
caused the discrete adverse effect of an increased security
deposit to apply disproportionately to members of protected
groups. As such, it is not the case that we are left wondering
whether members of a protected class are subject to the
increased fee because of this policy or because of some other
factor. Cf. Wards Cove, 490 U.S. at 653–54 (holding
causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not
disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of
minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was
caused by the company’s contract with a predominantly non-
White labor union). The sole cause of the disproportionate
impact of the increased security deposit was the District’s
decision to apply the policy only to a subset of its
customers. 13 In holding that Appellants established robust
causation sufficient to carry their burden of establishing a
prima facie case, we reject the district court’s analysis.
Again, the district court ignored the fact that the policy

Other Sections in This Document (145)

Full Text