The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)

Citation: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Parent Document: The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (2024)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2024-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10287865/the-ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-c... ↗

Full Text

1,518 chars

differently from other dwellings that are not defined by
disability.” Ohio House echoes this reasoning on appeal:
“Because the City limited the definitions of ‘group home’
and ‘sober living home’ to housing for persons with
disabilities, Ohio House established facial discrimination.”
See CMMC § 13-6.
     Under Community House’s stated burden-shifting
framework, Ohio House is correct. Although Community
House stated generally that “[a] facially discriminatory
policy is one which on its face applies less favorably to a
protected group,” 490 F.3d at 1048, in defining the steps of
its test for determining whether a facial-disparate treatment
claim is established under the FHA, it instructed that the first
step—the prima-facie case of intentional discrimination—is
satisfied “merely by showing that a protected group has been
subjected to explicitly differential—i.e., discriminatory—
treatment,” id. at 1050 (quoting Bangerter v. Orem City
Corp., 46 F.3d 1491, 1501 (10th Cir. 1995) (emphasis
added). Neither Community House nor the cases it relied on
for the burden-shifting framework required proof of
unfavorable treatment at the initial prima-facie stage. See id.
(citing Bangerter, 46 F.3d at 1501, 1503–04; Larkin v. Mich.
Dept. of Soc. Servs., 89 F.3d 285, 290 (6th Cir. 1996)) (“[A]
plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of intentional
discrimination under the [Fair Housing Act] merely by
showing that a protected group has been subjected to
explicitly differential—i.e. discriminatory—treatment.”). 3

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text