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

1,490 chars

homes are adversely impacted. But a disparate-impact claim
requires proof that the protected class—disabled
individuals—is suffering an adverse and disproportionate
impact. Id. Ohio House infers that the disabled will suffer
adverse downstream consequences if purveyors of group
homes are not allowed to operate under the City’s revised
zoning code, but as noted, “raising an inference of
discriminatory impact is insufficient.” Gamble, 104 F.3d at
306 (quoting Pfaff, 88 F.3d at 746).
    For the same reason, Ohio House’s assertion that it is not
required to present any comparative or statistical analysis to
demonstrate an adverse and disproportionate effect on the
disabled is unpersuasive. Ohio House argues that it can
prove disparate impact facially because the challenged
regulations “defined the affected classes” and there were no
boardinghouses in the City. As an initial matter, there is
evidence in the record that boardinghouses did exist and,
therefore, are a relevant comparator. 8 See Gamble, 104 F.3d
at 306–07 (“The relevant comparison group to determine a
discriminatory effect on the . . . disabled is other groups of
similar sizes living together. Otherwise, all that has been
demonstrated is a discriminatory effect on group living.”).
Additionally, without any evidence related to how the City’s
revised regulations governing group-living facilities
impacted disabled versus nondisabled individuals seeking
group-living arrangements, there is no evidence upon which

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text