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

687 chars
Indeed, if we were to read the FHA's anti-retaliation provision to require that a plaintiff allege discriminatory animus, it would be an anomaly. The FHA's anti-retaliation provision makes it unlawful "to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, ... any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title." 42 U.S.C. § 3617. Like all anti-retaliation provisions, it provides protections not because of who people are, but because of what they do. See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White , 548 U.S. 53, 63, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). V