Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)

Citation
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)
Parent Document
Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Cmty., LLC, 901 F.3d 856 (2018)
Effective Date
2018-08-27

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text

1,559 chars
In Bloch , the en banc court took a careful look at the availability of post-acquisition claims under section 3604(b). 587 F.3d at 779-81. We identified two situations in which such a claim could proceed: (1) when discriminatory conduct constructively evicts a resident, and (2) when occupancy is governed by discriminatory terms (in that case, a condo association rule that prohibited hanging mezuzot and thus discriminated against Jews). Id. at 779-80. As to the first situation, we reasoned that habitation is a "privilege of sale." Id. As to the second, the Bloch family's adherence to the discriminatory rule was a "condition of sale." Id. St. Andrew reads Bloch as identifying the exclusive set of post-acquisition claims that would be possible under section 3604(b). But we said no such thing. Instead, as courts do, we were addressing the case before us, and so we simply noted that those were "two possibilities for relief in [the present] case." Id. at 779. St. Andrew's argument *867also ignores that section 3604(b) protects not only against discrimination in the "terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental," but also discrimination "in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith." As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, the latter language most naturally encompasses conduct that follows acquisition. Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto , 583 F.3d 690, 713 (9th Cir. 2009). Few "services or facilities" are provided prior to the point of sale or rental; far more attach to a resident's occupancy. Id.