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

1,897 chars

Ninth Circuit precedent is consistent with this Supreme
Court rule, stating that a plaintiff alleging disparate
treatment (that is, intentional discrimination) may “produce
direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a
discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the
defendant and that the defendant’s actions adversely affected
the plaintiff in some way.” Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City
of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir. 2013)
(cleaned up) (emphasis added). And as we explained in
Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, “[a] facially
discriminatory policy is one which on its face applies less
favorably to a protected group.” 490 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th
Cir. 2007) (emphasis added).
    We have expanded the standard for showing disparate
treatment in the Fair Housing Act context. Under our
approach, if the plaintiff has been subject to “intentional
differential treatment” compared to an unprotected group, “a
defendant must show either: (1) that the restriction benefits
the protected class or (2) that it responds to legitimate safety
concerns raised by the individuals affected, rather than being
based on stereotypes.” Cmty. House, Inc., 490 F.3d at 1050.
In other words, if the plaintiff challenges a policy that
facially applies less favorably to a protected group, the
defendant may still justify the policy by proving that under
the facts of that particular case, the difference is beneficial
to the protected class. See id. For instance, in Community
House, the City of Boise argued that despite the plaintiff’s
claim that Boise’s policy adversely affected women by not
allowing them to take advantage of men-only shelters, the
policy “benefits women and families by protecting their
safety.” Id. at 1051–52. The evidence establishing a
beneficial effect of a facially discriminatory, adverse rule
64          THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text