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) 2.
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

1,802 chars

2.      Disparate Impact
    Next, Ohio House challenges the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for the City on the disparate-impact
claim.
    The disparate-impact theory of discrimination prohibits
actions that “create a discriminatory effect upon a protected
class or perpetuate housing segregation without any
concomitant legitimate reason.” S.W. Fair Hous. Council,
Inc. v. Maricopa Domestic Water Improvement Dist., 17
F.4th 950, 962 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ave. 6E, 818 F.3d at
503). These claims “‘permit[] plaintiffs to counteract
unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape
easy classification.’” Ave. 6E, 818 F.3d at 503 (quoting
Inclusive Communities, 576 U.S. at 540). They “target[]
‘artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers’ to minority
housing and integration that can occur through unthinking,
even if not malignant, policies of developers and
governmental entities.” Id. (quoting Inclusive Communities,
576 U.S. at 540). In other words, as previously discussed,
disparate-impact        claims—unlike      disparate-treatment
claims—focus on “the consequences of actions and not just
[] the mindset of actors . . . .” Inclusive Communities, 576
U.S. at 534.
    To establish prima facie disparate impact, a plaintiff
must present evidence of: “(1) the existence of a policy . . .
that is outwardly neutral; (2) a significant, adverse, and
disproportionate effect on a protected class; and (3) robust
causality that shows, beyond mere evidence of a statistical
disparity, that the challenged policy, and not some other
factor or policy, caused the disproportionate effect.” S.W.
Fair Hous. Council, 17 F.4th at 962 (footnote omitted).
Here, the district court concluded that Ohio House failed to
          THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA        29

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text