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

908 chars

The Court in Morris employed the Arlington Heights
inquiry, which is an alternative to the McDonnell Douglass
framework, not merely an element of that framework. Id. at
1144 (citing to Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport
Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) and Ave. 6E
Invs., LLC v. City of Yuma, 818 F.3d 493, 504 (9th Cir. 2016),
both of which describe the alternative Arlington Heights
inquiry); see also Op. at 18–19 (describing the Arlington
Heights inquiry as an alternative way to prove disparate
treatment). By conflating the Arlington Heights requirement
for discriminatory intent with the McDonnell Douglas
framework, the majority opinion does not “make explicit
what our decision in Morris suggests,” but instead raises the
burden on plaintiffs to prove interference under the FHA.
Op. at 40. Because this portion of the decision is contrary to
our precedent, I respectfully dissent.

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text