Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)

Citation
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Parent Document
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-09-01

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

947 chars
-12-
is not so stark and unexplainable on other grounds to justify, on its own, an inference
of discriminatory purpose. See Ricketts v. City of Columbia, Mo., 36 F.3d 775, 781
(8th Cir. 1994) (“[I]n only a few cases, where a facially neutral policy impacted
exclusively against one suspect class and that impact was unexplainable on neutral
grounds, has the impact alone signaled a discriminatory purpose.”). The City’s
explanation, which has greater support in the record, is that DNHPI targeted properties
occupied mostly by low-income tenants. Although racial minorities were
disproportionately represented, those low-income tenants included people of all races.
Such conduct may be actionable, but not under the rubric of disparate treatment. See
id. (“When there is a rational, neutral explanation for the adverse impact and the law
or custom disadvantages both men and women, then an inference of discriminatory
purpose is not permitted.”).