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

1,086 chars

ii.
    Regardless of its prima-facie showing, Ohio House’s
disparate-treatment claim fails because the differential
treatment imposed under the City’s group-living regulations
facially “benefits the protected class.” Id. 4
    At the outset, Ohio House argues that a comparator
analysis is inappropriate. This is incorrect. As discussed, all
disparate-treatment claims require proof that the defendant
acted with discriminatory intent. Inclusive Communities,
576 U.S. at 524. In analyzing whether the necessary intent
was proven in a facial challenge governed by Community
House, the defendant must have the opportunity to
demonstrate that the differential treatment identified by the
plaintiff actually benefits the disabled. 490 F.3d at 1050.
Otherwise, liability could be imposed for “benign
discrimination” (“special restrictions upon the disabled that
are really beneficial to, rather than discriminatory against,
[disabled persons],” Courage to Change, 73 F.4th at 1197
(alteration in original)), which does not evidence
discriminatory intent—the ultimate touchstone of disparate

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text