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

1,121 chars

Although the Supreme Court in Inclusive Communities
used the phrase “business necessity” to describe this step of
the analysis, that term is somewhat of a misnomer. First, the
defense is available not only to businesses but also to
individuals and public entities. Inclusive Communities,
576 U.S. at 541. Second, the standard is not “necessity”: the
defendant need not demonstrate that the challenged policy is
“‘essential’ or ‘indispensable’” to its business—only that the
policy “serves, in a significant way,” its legitimate interests.
Wards Cove, 490 U.S. at 659; accord Hardie, 876 F.3d
at 320 (“The defendant’s practice need not be ‘essential’ or
‘indispensable’ to achieving its stated goal, but the
relationship between the practice and its purpose must be
more than ‘insubstantial.’” (quoting Wards Cove, 490 U.S.
at 659)). 15 To require that a business or government show
that a challenged policy is “necessary” to its interests would
be to render the defense a nullity. Cf. Wards Cove, 490 U.S.
at 659 (“[T]here is no requirement that the challenged
practice be ‘essential’ or ‘indispensable’ to the employer’s

Other Sections in This Document (145)

Full Text