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

1,273 chars

require a special-use permit. If a group home with two or
fewer rooms wanted to open without a permit, it could opt
into the boardinghouse regulatory scheme. 6 Based on the
City’s concession, the group and sober-living home
regulations operate as a one-way ratchet to broaden the
regulatory options for group housing serving the disabled.7
In situations where the boardinghouse regulations are more
favorable, group homes can opt into that scheme. Where
group and sober-living home regulations are more favorable,
they can make that choice. This choice benefits group and
sober-living homes over boardinghouses. For this reason, we
conclude that Ohio House’s FHA disparate-treatment claim
fails.
                                   iii.
    The standard under the FEHA is slightly different than
under the FHA because proof of a benefit to the protected
class does not end the inquiry under California’s statute. The
FEHA requires that a facially discriminatory policy be the
least-restrictive means of achieving its purpose. Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 2, § 12042(f)(2). “Although the government bears
the burden of proof” in a least-restrictive-means inquiry, “it
is under no obligation to dream up alternatives that the
plaintiff [itself] has not proposed.” Walker v. Beard, 789

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text