Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Citation
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Parent Document
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2025-12-04
Other Sections in This Document (43)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
- Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
Full Text
1,795 charsand decorations in their windows, she makes no factual alle-
gations about their national origins from which a comparison
can be made. It is not enough that Farhan claims that the pol-
icy “negatively impacts Palestinians”—she must plead that
the policy negatively impacts Palestinians more by proportion
than non-Palestinians. See Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d at 1290–
91 (determining discriminatory effect by looking at “adverse
impact on a significantly greater percentage of the nonwhite
people”). Without any indications of how many Palestinians
are or may be affected by the policy, compared to non-Pales-
tinians, the complaint provides no basis from which we can
infer a disparate impact.
Farhan’s only suggestion of a disparate impact is that, be-
cause defendants’ “neutrality” policy applied only to the Is-
rael-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian tenants “by definition”
were not allowed to express national pride in the same way
as other tenants. But this is a non-starter; to the extent that the
policy can be said to facially impact Palestinians more than
other groups—i.e. the policy is facially discriminatory—“dis-
parate treatment is the proper theory for analyzing the facts
of th[e] case, not disparate impact.” Reidt v. County of Trem-
pealeau, 975 F.2d 1336, 1340 (7th Cir. 1992). Disparate impact
requires us to look beyond the text of the policy and to its ac-
tual effects, but Farhan alleges none that could support her
claim.
Again, we do not hold that the kind of policy described in
Farhan’s complaint could never give rise to a disparate impact
theory under the FHA. Given the specific arguments before
us, however, Farhan has not claimed a plausible disparate im-
pact theory under § 3604.
No. 24-1532 17