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

1,876 chars

because of who people are, but because of what they do.”).
Simplistically, a retaliation theory asserts: because A did
this, B did that to A.
    This type of temporal, cause-and-effect inquiry does not
make sense for claims based on an interference theory,
which presuppose a different causal inquiry. In this context,
to establish causation at the prima-facie stage, we focus not
on whether the defendant interfered with the plaintiff’s rights
in reaction to plaintiff’s actions, but whether the defendant
interfered because it had discriminatory intent.
    We applied this intent-based causation standard most
recently in Morris. There, the plaintiffs brought an
interference claim under § 3617 when a Homeowners’
Association Board sought to prevent plaintiffs from hosting
a Christmas event both before and after they purchased their
home. 104 F.4th at 1135–38, 1142. Assessing the viability
of plaintiffs’ claim, we determined that “we must review the
record for evidence that the Board’s threatening,
intimidating, and interfering conduct, although it did not
preclude the [plaintiffs] from purchasing their home or
putting on their Christmas event, was driven at least in part
by a motive to disfavor the [plaintiffs’] religion.” Id. at 1143.
That is, we had to determine whether the Board’s actions
“could serve as evidence that [it] was actually motivated, at
least in part, by an anti-religious discriminatory purpose.” Id.
at 1145. And we held that the plaintiffs had presented
sufficient evidence to show that the “Board interfered with
the[ir] exercise of their right to purchase and enjoy their
home at least in part because of their religious expression,
and therefore violated § 3617 of the FHA.” Id.
   “At its core, the FHA guarantees tenants and
homeowners a right to take and enjoy possession of a home
40        THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text