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

1,113 chars

a jury could find that these regulations have had a
“significant, adverse, and disproportionate effect” on the
disabled. S.W. Fair Hous., 17 F.4th at 962; Pulsifer v. United
States, 601 U.S. 124, 133, 139 (2024) (explaining that an
enumeration of three requirements linked by the conjunction
“and” creates “three necessary conditions”).
    Separate from whether Ohio House can prove the second
element of the prima facie case, it has an additional problem
with proving the first element. Ohio House must establish
that the challenged policy is “outwardly neutral.” S.W. Fair
Hous., 17 F.4th at 962. But here, its disparate impact theory
contends that the City’s zoning code is facially
discriminatory. Ohio House concedes that the “disparate
impact analysis is usually not applied to a facially
discriminatory policy”; nonetheless, it incorporates its
facial-discrimination theory into its disparate-impact claim,
thereby failing to prove the first element. 9
    For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did
not err in granting summary judgment for the City on Ohio
House’s disparate-impact claim.

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text